Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Ordered,
That in the case of Cumberland County Council Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendment be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL

Ordered,
That in the case of West Hertfordshire Main Drainage Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendment be now considered.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE

Third London Airport

Mr. Skeet: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the Government's policy on the location of the third London airport.

Mr. Allason: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on the location of the third London airport.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Frederick Corfield): The Commis

sion on the Third London Airport is expected to report towards the end of this year and the Government will then take a decision as quickly as may be in the light of the Commission's recommendation.

Mr. Skeet: Can the Minister be a little more specific about the date? When he says that it will be towards the end of this year, does he mean at the beginning of next year? Is he aware that if he wants to pay tribute to Conservation Year, 1970, a suitable place for the third airport is on the coast? Is he aware of the vast expenditure so far incurred by various parties to try to persuade him that the right location would be elsewhere than inland?

Mr. Corfield: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that the actual production of the report is in the hands of the Commission and not myself. As for the final decision, I hope that he will recognise that the Commission, with its terms of reference and composition, was set up with the agreement of all parties, and it would be quite wrong to prejudge the issue.

Mr. Allason: Has not the work of the Roskill Commission already demonstrated that there is no significant difference in construction costs between the four sites? In consequence, is not there now clearly a choice between the preservation of amenity and inconvenience to travellers? Will my hon. Friend ensure that inconvenience to travellers is given a higher priority than the loss of amenity to the rest of the population?

Mr. Corfield: I am afraid that I could not go along with my hon. Friend in agreeing that it is self-evident that the amenity points in any one direction.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Will the Minister confirm that despite the immense importance of the Roskill Commission's report when it appears he will nevertheless not necessarily be tied to it in coming to his final decision? Will he confirm that the House will have an adequate opportunity of debating any decision that the Government recommend to the House?

Mr. Corfield: I accept that the decision when made, is a Government decision.


We shall take account of the recommendations, but only account of them. As for a debate, I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will wish the House to be able to discuss the report.

Mr. William Clark: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the third airport is put inland it is bound to cause more loss of amenity than if it is sited on the coast? Will he further confirm that although the economic implications of a third London airport are extremely important this should not be the only factor to be brought into account in siting the airport?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes", and to the first part, "No".

Mr. Russell Kerr: Can the Minister assure the House that his mind is not altogether closed to the possibility that a third London airport may not be needed after all?

Mr. Corfield: My mind is never closed to anything, but I think that it is improbable.

Eastern Europe

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to expand British trade with Eastern Europe.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Grant): The expansion of our trade with Eastern Europe, as with other areas, depends primarily upon the efforts of individual British firms. The Government will continue to give them such assistance at home and abroad as we can.

Mrs. Short: That reply is not wholly satisfactory. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor did a great deal to encourage expansion of trade with East European countries? In order to apprise himself of the great potential for capital goods and consumer goods in Eastern Europe, would the hon. Gentleman perhaps visit some of the East European capitals during the recess?

Mr. Grant: I am well aware of the hon. Lady's great interest in this matter and of what my predecessor did. Whether I shall be able to pay a visit during the recess remains to be seen, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Lady says.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now taken steps to set up an office of his department in East Berlin.

Mr. Anthony Grant: No, Sir. Since Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the East German régime, it is not possible for any Department of Her Majesty's Government to establish an office in East Berlin.

Mrs. Short: That, again, is a rather blind spot reply. As we have now signed a three-year trade agreement with this country which we say we do not recognise, and as there is great hope of trebling the trade in both directions in the very near future, does not the hon. Gentlemen think that the implementation of this proposal would be well worth while for British trading interests and British industry?

Mr. Grant: We cannot set up an official office while we do not recognise the East German régime. If the hon. Lady wants to pursue the point, she should table a Question to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, trade with East Germany has been increasing without an office. I know that the C.B.I. and the London Chamber of Commerce have been investigating the possibility of setting up a private office, and the results seem to be fairly encouraging.

Mr. Mason: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was giving sympathetic consideration to encouraging, not necessarily the setting up of a Government office in East Berlin, but the C.B.I. and others to have a trade office there. If we are to get the maximum benefit from the agreement made by the C.B.I. and the East German authorities, is it not absolutely essential that we have an office there?

Mr. Grant: That is precisely one of the things which we shall discuss with the C.B.I. If industry considered that it would be useful to have a private office and that it would increase trade, then it would have our support.

South Africa

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on trade with South Africa.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on British exports to South Africa.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The Government's policy is to encourage further expansion of our trade with South Africa.

Mr. Wall: I welcome that reply, but would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is wholly hypocritical to build up trade with another country and then refuse to supply arms to the co-signatory of a defence agreement?

Mr. Noble: I cannot go further than the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made to the House on Monday.

Mr. Sheldon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of growth of imports to this country from South Africa is greater than the rate of growth of our exports to that country? Why should we not press for a greater number of exports to be allowed into that country, not including arms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]1—because of the growing imbalance?

Mr. Noble: If the hon. Gentleman has studied the figures, he will know that we have had a favourable trade balance with South Africa for a large number of years. Nothing that he says, or that I say, will diminish the importance of increasing our exports to South Africa.

Mr. David Steel: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of British trade in the nearest convenient year and 10 years previously with Africa north of the Zambesi and Africa south of the Zambesi, respectively.

Mr. Noble: As the answer contains several figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It shows that between the years 1959 and 1969, for both areas, imports roughly doubled in value whilst exports increased by about three-fifths.

Mr. Steel: Is it not a reasonable conjecture that over the next 10 years as the economies of the under-developed countries improve trade with countries north of the Zambesi could increase at

a considerably faster rate than it has improved over the last 10 years provided that the Government do nothing to jeopardise our political links with them?

Mr. Noble: I am not certain that this can be inferred from what has happened in the past. I hope that our exports to those countries will greatly increase, but there is a great deal of evidence that exports increase fastest to the more developed countries.

Mr. Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the development of French trade with countries north of the Zambesi, particularly since the time that France has been selling arms to South Africa?

Mr. Noble: I am sure that if my hon. Friend puts down that Question on the Order Paper, we shall be able to supply him with the information.

Following is the information:


UNITED KINGDOM TRADE WITH AFRICA*


£ million



1959
1969



Imports
Exports
Imports
Exports


North of the Zambesi
309
262
642
416


South of the Zambesi†
165
201
347
319


* Excluding the Malagasy Republic (Madagascar) and other islands.


† South Africa, South West Africa, Rhodesia (estimated for 1959), Lesotho (Basutoland), Botswana (Bechuanaland), Mozambique and Angola.

Insurance Companies (Political Contributions)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all insurance companies which made political contributions in 1968 and 1969, respectively, indicating amounts paid and to which political organisation.

Mr. Noble: I have no information for 1969. For 1968, the hon. Member will find the information he is seeking in Volume 3, No. 1 of "Economic Brief", published by the Labour Party.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures will probably be more accurate than the figures which he would provide? When can


these companies expect the pay-off from this Government?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that any company or trade union necessarily expects a pay-off. They want a good Government.

Sir H. Harrison: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this continual sniping at insurance companies is unnecessary as they contribute so much to our invisible export trade?

Mr. Mason: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would try to bring the league table of principal Tory donors up to date to show whether the performance of the bankers and brewers, who between them gave £250,000 to the Tory Party last year, can be bettered?

Mr. Noble: My predecessor in office did not think that it was a suitable use of officials' time and of public funds to produce a report and do a job which was, no doubt excellently, done by the paper to which I have referred.

National Exhibition Centre

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on and timetable concerning the building of the Birmingham National Exhibition Centre.

Mr. Barnett: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the proposed National Exhibition Centre.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake a re-examination of the site of the National Exhibition Centre.

Mr. Noble: Her Majesty's Government have reconsidered—in the light of the substantial progress made by Birmingham and of further representations made by the Greater London Council—the undertaking given on 28th January to support the proposal for a National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham. I have already announced the Government's intention to support the Birmingham project.

Sir G. Nabarro: Can my right hon. Friend say when the project will actually commence, what period of time will be

occupied by the building, and in what year he expects the new exhibition to become operational?

Mr. Noble: I wish I could give my hon. Friend all the information for which he asks. The selection of this site for the centre was very much influenced by the fact that it was likely to be far the soonest in operation: I regard that as important. The problems of building time and of obtaining planning permission and so on are for the National Exhibition Centre Ltd. However, I am visiting this organisation on 31st July to encourage it to do everything it can to speed up the process.

Mr. Barnett: Has the right hon. Gentleman done any more research than his predecessor did to satisfy himself that this centre will not be a vast white elephant? If he is satisfied that it will not be a white elephant but a commercial success, does that mean that there will be no Government intervention?

Sir G. Nabarro: It was the only sensible thing which the Labour Party did.

Mr. Noble: I studied with great care the research which my predecessor did. A great deal of work was done. Whether my predecessor saw it or not I cannot say, but I saw it. I have discussed the problem with the Greater London Council and other interested parties to make myself as familiar with the matter as it is possible to be at the time.

Mr. Sheldon: But did the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who has pointed out that the trade associations and main exhibitors were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the present site? Did he take that into account, or does he not speak to his right hon. Friend about these matters?

Mr. Noble: On the contrary, I speak regularly to my right hon. Friends. The fact that most people in the exhibition world would prefer it to be in London does not necessarily mean that London is the only possible site. I believe passionately that some things should be developed outside London for this and many other reasons.

Sir G. Nabarro: A very good answer.

Exports

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what new steps he will take to increase exports, visible and invisible, and re-exports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for the promotion of exports.

Mr. Barrett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what specific new export incentives he is proposing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: The Government recognise that our success in exports depends on the efforts of British industry and commerce, and we will fully support their endeavours.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the balance of payments is now running into squally weather, aggravated by the dock strike?

Mr. William Hamilton: And a Tory Government.

Sir G. Nabarro: It is nothing to do with the Tory Government. Would my right hon. Friend particularly examine the possibility of restoring export incentives—that is, the restitution to exporters of the element of indirect taxation contained in manufactured goods exported from this country, which was scrapped so prematurely by the Labour Government?

Mr. Noble: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's view of the extreme importance of our balance of trade figures now, in the past, and perhaps for many months to come. Therefore. I shall examine with my right hon. Friends any useful suggestion to make certain that we do not miss any opportunity of improving our position.

Mr. Barnett: What advice has the right hon. Gentleman given the banks about whether they or the Government should continue the low 5½ per cent. interest rate to exporters? Is he aware that many small exporters are finding it extremely difficult to obtain this form of export incentive?

Mr. Noble: No answer has as yet been given to the banks. This problem

will undoubtedly be considered with them fairly shortly.

Mr. Eadie: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from the motor industry concerning stimulation of exports; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Anthony Grant: None, but my right hon. Friend has today received a copy of a paper addressed to the Ministry of Technology by the motor industry on its current problems.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that disquiet is being voiced by the motor car industry, particularly when one has regard to the promises made by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition. May we take it that there has been a change of mind by the Government on this issue?

Mr. Grant: I am not aware to what change of mind the hon. Gentleman is referring because I am not certain what he has in mind. All I can tell him is that my right hon. Friend will study the paper that he has received in consultation with the Minister of Technology. My Department and the Ministry of Technology are in regular contact with the motor industry on export matters.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make an official world tour in support of Great Britain's export drive; and what proposals he has for assisting in the growth of British exports.

Mr. Noble: I shall be visting a number of countries on trade matters. The aim of our commercial and export promotion policies is to assist the essential growth of British exports.

Mr. Lewis: I wanted some sort of tangible answer but I have nothing whatever in that reply. The right hon. Gentleman may be a good travelling Minister, but that will not bring us exports. What action, what programme, what policy does he intend to pursue?

Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade has a most comprehensive service to help industries which wish to export. We shall encourage them. I have answered the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when he goes to these other countries he will do as he did on a previous occasion and wear his kilt?

Mr. Noble: That depends on the weather.

Mr. Ogden: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of export credit facilities in making exports possible, and will he give a clear undertaking before the recess that our export credit facilities will be no less under his Government than they were under the previous Government?

Mr. Noble: I can give no such undertaking. Conditions change considerably, and, as this Government are likely to be in power for the next 15 years, changes may well be required.

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that the Government have proposals for curtailing present export credit facilities?

Mr. Noble: Certainly not. We realise that the amount of money being advanced in this way has been increasing very greatly, and as our exports expand, the money will need to increase also. I have no doubt about that. What I cannot guarantee permanently is the rate of interest.

Soft Fruit Imports

Mr. John Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will initiate talks with the National Farmers Unions about soft fruit imports;
(2) if he will have early consultations with the National Farmers Unions about the recent increase in soft fruit imports.

Mr. Noble: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is primarily responsible for contacts with the agricultural and horticultural industries on matters of general policy. I understand that he has already arranged to meet the National Farmers Union to discuss horticultural matters.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer because it shows clearly that the Department is taking a better view of horticulture than has been the case in recent years. However, on the point raised in Question

No. 11, may I ask him specifically whether he is aware that the recent increase in imports has done nothing to reduce the price for the consumer, and at the same time has done a great deal to upset the home producers' market?

Mr. Noble: I can only tell my hon. Friend that up to the end of May—the figures for June are not yet available—the level of imports of soft fruit did not show any increase. It was almost exactly the same as in 1968 and 1969—in fact, slightly lower.

Civil Aviation

Mr. Marten: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the future of British airlines.

Mr. Ogden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the operation of the present legislation controlling civil aviation operations in this country; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Noble: I shall announce the Government's proposals as soon as possible.

Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend explain what he means by "as soon as possible"? Will it be before the House rises for the recess? Second, will he give an assurance that if there is to be any change in the authority which deals with the route licensing pattern the announcement of that change will be made to the House, whereas the other matter may be a purely commercial one?

Mr. Noble: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that I certainly hope so. The answer to the first part is that the negotiations are continuing, but I cannot anticipate them coming to any conclusion before the Houses rises.

Mr. Ogden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he waits until after the recess to make his announcement to the House of Commons that will be four full months after the election of his party to office? There is tremendous uncertainty in the industry and among operators. Will he follow the excellent example of some of his Ministerial colleagues and introduce the legislation


which was in course of preparation by the previous Government?

Mr. Noble: The answer to the second question is "No". Nothing that I have yet seen is anywhere approaching being ready for introduction. The answer to the first question is that I realise the urgency of the matter, but I cannot come to a conclusion before the House goes into recess. If decisions have to be made on commercial issues before the House returns, they will have to be made during the recess.

Mr. Mason: On the question of legislation, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive Bill covering civil aviation—namely, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Airways Board together—or will the Government separate that legislation? Second, if the B.U.A.-Caledonian talks come to a successful conclusion during the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that there will be no B.O.A.C. transfer of routes before the House has been consulted on the matter?

Mr. Noble: I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that no transfer of routes could possibly take place before then. On the other matter, we have to wait and see what Government time is available, and what legislation is to be fitted into it.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great urgency with which the decision is awaited in the independent airline operating sector, and also of the uncertainty which hangs over the future of the Air Registration Board, which has served this country's civil aviation so well for so long?

Mr. Noble: I am fully aware of both those considerations. We have been working very hard to try to get these points cleared up, but there has not been a great deal of time to deal with these difficult and complex problems.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the President of the Board of Trade which industries will benefit on Great Britain joining the Common Market; and which will not.

Mr. Noble: Most British companies which are competitive in world markets

should benefit from the greater opportunities offered by entry into the European Economic Community. Those industries which are contributing to the rapid expansion of our exports to Western Europe should be well placed to do even better.

Mr. Marten: That answers only half the Question. I am concerned with what industries will not benefit. As the Government are now appearing to make up their mind about these matters rather more quickly than the previous Government did, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government are thinking of issuing another White Paper setting out the advantages of going in, and whether, economically speaking, these are quantifiable yet?

Mr. Noble: I accept my hon. Friend's rebuke that my reply answers only half his Question. I very carefully did not include specific industries, in case they thought that I was saying that they were either not competitive or not doing enough work in trying to push exports. This is a problem in which, quite often, industries are not to be judged as a whole. Some parts of an industry do extremely well, while other parts of it are a little less good.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that what is worrying people in Scotland is not the industries that will benefit if we go into the Common Market but those that will not; for example, the coal mining industry and the agricultural industry. The right hon. Gentleman must have knowledge of this as he is a Scottish Member of Parliament.

Mr. Noble: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's remark about the agricultural industry. Perhaps my Scottish background makes me feel that we are the most efficient part of the agriculture industry in Britain. I am certain that we are competitive and will do well.

Inertia Selling

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation with regard to inertia selling; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy


in regard to the prohibition of inertia selling.

Mr. Anthony Grant: We would be as helpful as possible to any private Member who introduced a suitable Bill on this subject, based on the one considered in the last Parliament, but I can hold out no hope of Government time being available in the present Session.

Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there was great disappointment on both sides of the House, amongst consumers and amongst business men that the last excellent Inertia Selling Bill did not become law, which I accept was no fault of his? Will he also bear in mind that the completely bogus directory firms has begun to operate again? Why do not the Government now give time to introduce a Bill themselves to stamp out this disreputable practice and to protect the public from what is becoming a growing nuisance?

Mr. Grant: I am aware of the concern about this matter, and indeed of the excellent work which the hon. Gentleman did. I believe that his Bill, excellent though it may have been, required considerable drafting assistance, and such assistance will be available to any private Member who cares to take this up. I should not like the House to be under the impression that the bogus directory is perhaps quite so widespread, or quite so deliberate a practice as imagined. It is by no means quite so widespread. The Government will be as helpful as they can in providing the assistance of draftsmen, but we do not consider that it is a sufficient problem at the moment to justify the Government giving time in the present Session.

Mr. Speaker: Questions and answers must be brief.

Mr. Goodhart: As both sides of the House collaborated closely in the last Parliament in passing the Inertia Selling Bill through all its stages through the House, will the Government consider testing opinion in another place by seeking to introduce a Bill there?

Mr. Grant: It is always open to another place to introduce a Bill if it thinks fit, but at the moment we very much hope that someone who is successful in the Ballot in the autumn will take up the Bill.

Sir G. de Freitas: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment as soon as I can.

British Ships (Secondhand Sales)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade what number and tonnage of ships flying the British flag were sold secondhand to overseas owners in 1969; and how far the average price obtained was above that in 1968.

Mr. Corfield: A total of 105 vessels of 831,000 gross tons were sold to overseas shipowners in 1969. Comparable information about average prices is not available.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Do not the figures show that this is a very good moment for the modernisation of the merchant fleet with newly-built tonnage, and will the Government do what they can to encourage that process in order to get a purely modern merchant fleet?

Mr. Corfield: I am glad to say that this is exactly the reaction of British shipowners. Against the tonnage that was sold and the relatively small amount that was scrapped, no less than 2,741,000 gross tons were added to the British merchant fleet in 1969, most of it modern.

Shoppsers (Safeguards)

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake a publicity campaign regarding the safeguards that are available to housewives as shoppers.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Not at the moment, but I will bear the suggestion in mind.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968, was one of the most useful Measures passed by the last Labour Government and conferred on housewives many benefits of which they are not fully aware? Will he, therefore, if he wants this Government to justify their claim to be the friends of the housewives, do something to publicise the


very substantial advantages that this Act confers?

Mr. Grant: I am well aware that the Trade Descriptions Act, which was supported by my party—as I know, because I was on the Committee at the time—is working well and, indeed, confers many benefits on consumers. But what with the Consumer Council, the Consumers Association and other bodies, there is today more information available to the consumer than there has ever been. Nevertheless, I will bear in mind the hon. Member's suggestion, but I must look at the subject with a view to the expenditure that would be involved.

Mr. Ogden: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what has happened to the Housewives' League? Is he aware that, whatever safeguards are available to the housewife, they are certainly not to be found on the benches opposite? What have he or his colleagues done about insurance and other price increases, petrol price increases, meat price increases, and the whole range of increases going through in the last three weeks?

Mr. Grant: I can only say that the Housewives' League is not the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and also that on 18th June the housewives had their opportunity to express their opinion.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend recognise that any benefits bestowed on the housewife by the last Government were purely negative, and will he give an asurance that this Government will bestow positive benefits on the housewife?

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with the first part of her supplementary question. As to the second part, I hope that she will not be disappointed at the end of this Session.

Package Tour Holidays

Mr. Rose: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to initiate an inquiry into package tour holidays and set up a permanent committee to deal with complaints and enforce a code of conduct.

Mr. Corfield: I do not consider that there is a need for an inquiry of this kind, or for a permanent committee. The number of complaints about package

tours is very small compared with the number of holidays taken each year by United Kingdom residents. However, I will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Rose: Is the Minister of State aware that his answer is complete nonsense, and that these complaints are sent not to the Board of Trade but to Members of Parliament and others? Is he aware that I can provide him with a large dossier on this subject, and that it is estimated that this year 250,000 holidaymakers are due to have their holidays interfered with, without redress, because of negligence or insufficient service by the tour operators?

Mr. Corfield: I would suggest that the hon. Member's duty is to pass the information to the Government Department concerned, which is the Board of Trade. If he does so, I shall certainly look into the complaints.

National Film Finance Corporation (Film Studios)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a general direction to the National Film Finance Corporation to use its powers to set up a corporate body for the purpose of acquiring film studios.

Mr. Corfield: The National Film Finance Corporation has not the power to establish a body corporate for the purpose of acquiring film studios. My right hon. Friend cannot, therefore, give a direction in the sense proposed.

Mr. Jenkins: I did not ask the Minister of State to give a direction. I asked about what I believe to be the mistaken restrictions that he suggests exist upon the powers of the National Film Finance Corporation. Although, as I say, I believe his reply to be inaccurate, it was not as unsympatheic as it might have been, so will he look into the question again?

Mr. Corfield: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at the legal position very carefully, and I think it is clear that as the National Film Finance Corporation has not the power to buy film studios, it must follow that it cannot set up subsidiary bodies to do what it is itself not allowed to do.

Luton Airport (Flight Paths)

Mr. Allason: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will select flight paths from Luton airport which avoid flying beneath the Heathrow control zone.

Mr. Corfield: No, Sir. Under present arrangements, aircraft operating from Luton airport to the airways system are not required to fly beneath the London terminal control area. The routeing of aircraft northwards out of the London terminal control area after westerly takeoff is impracticable for safety and operational reasons, and would increase noise disturbance to Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.

Mr. Allason: Can my hon. Friend explain why aircraft from Luton airport are flying at below 3,000 ft. for 15 miles across my constituency, producing noise intolerable by day and quite unacceptable by night?

Mr. Corfield: I have obsolutely no evidence that they are flying so low or for so long, but if my hon. Friend will provide me with evidence I will look into it and try to identify the aircraft concerned.

Mr. Madel: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will retain the present flight paths from Luton Airport until he has received the report of the Roskill Commission on the siting of the Third London Airport.

Mr. Corfield: The choice of precise flight paths from Luton airport is a matter for the owners, Luton Corporation, within the overall pattern of airspace arrangements laid down by the Board of Trade. Operations from a third London airport are many years off and are not, therefore, relevant to the short-term pattern of flights from Luton.

Mr. Madel: As there is increasing noise, even on the present flight paths out of Luton, can my hon. Friend say whether the Government have any plans for accelerating the development of quieter aero engines either by ourselves or in conjunction with other Western European countries? Will he press for quieter engines in short haulage jets flying from Luton airport?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend will be aware that from next January an Order is to come into force which will restrict the noise of new aircraft coming into operation substantially below existing levels. This will entail, we hope, a gradual quietening of aero engines to something like 50 per cent. of the noise level in relation to the some weight of aircraft as at present.

Company Law Reform

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to give effect to outstanding recommendations of the Jenkins Committee on company law reform in the current session of Parliament.

Mr. Anthony Grant: As stated in the Queen's Speech, the Government are reviewing company law. We will consider the outstanding recommendations of the Jenkins Committee and the desirability and timing of further legislation, and will announce our conclusions later.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, as far as I know, no Government have ever found time to introduce two companies Bills? Will he therefore try to ensure that this companies Bill, when it comes forward, deals with all the extra protection recommended by the Jenkins Committee for the minority shareholder in publicly-owned companies, and preferably goes further than Jenkins, so that we can have companies legislation which is a spur to the sort of share-owning democracy that we on this side so urgently want to see?

Mr. Grant: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in and knowledge of this subject—we served together on the Committee some years ago—and he may rest assured that we shall bear in mind the advice he has proffered.

Mr. Dell: What further action does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to take in the matter of disclosure by large companies?

Mr. Grant: This is one of the matters which are to be considered in our review which is taking place.

Africa

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make


a statement on the Government's policy towards trade with Africa.

Mr. Noble: Our policy is to expand our trade with Africa.

Mr. Judd: Will not the President of the Board of Trade agree that there is very welcome evidence that our trade with Africa, other than with the Republic of South Africa, is doing increasingly well? Will he not also agree that there are many opportunities, north of the Zambesi in particular, still to be exploited which are not yet being exploited by Britain but which are being exploited by our competitors? In view of this, would he not agree that it would be lunacy to jeopardise these opportunities by totally unnecessary policies towards the Republic of South Africa which can only be regarded as hostile by the rest of the continent?

Mr. Noble: The figures of trade between countries north and south of the Zambesi come into a later Question, but I can at this stage tell the hon. Member that both sets of figures have been increasing at almost exactly the same rate.

Mr. Waddington: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that political considerations are not allowed to interfere with trade with any country?

Mr. Noble: I should like to be able to believe that politics and trade never interfered with each other, but I think that this is asking the House too much.

Air Fares

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to reduce air fares on flights of which the fares are fixed in accordance with agreements made by members of the International Air Traffic Association.

Mr. Corfield: I trust that the existing machinery can be used to secure international agreement to the lowest air fares consistent with the safety and prosperity of our airlines.

Mr. Cronin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time there was some investigation into the way in which air fares are fixed by I.A.T.A.? Is it not the case that in the majority of cases these air fares are excessively high and

that this causes hardship to people taking their holidays and other forms of travel?

Mr. Corfield: I agree that it is possible to think of endless criticisms of I.A.T.A. Nevertheless, it is not easy to think of a better organisation to conduct this necessary function. However, I greatly welcome the B.O.A.C. Early Bird proposals and hope that these will set the trend for a number of similar reductions.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that air fares in Australia, for example, are rather less than half those of the European structure? Will he use his best endeavours to "put the boot" into I.A.T.A. to see if we can get some sanity into this business so that we can get into the mass market, as many hon. Members want to see?

Mr. Corfield: I am always willing to look for opportunities to "put the boot" into all sorts of things.

Mr. William Hamilton: Tory skinheads.

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) will look at some of the Australian fare structures, he will find that they will do very well when in partnership with B.O.A.C.

Travel Agents and Estate Agents (Clients' Deposits)

Mr. Marks: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation requiring travel agents and estate agents to hold all moneys received from clients' deposits in a separate trust account.

Mr. Noble: I should prefer to watch the development of the voluntary bonding schemes in these sectors before deciding whether statutory control is necessary.

Mr. Marks: Is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is concern about this and that concern has been expressed by the Consumer Council? Is he aware that there is holding of more than one deposit on a house by estate agents? Will he look further into this?

Mr. Noble: Yes, of course I will. As I am sure the hon. Member knows, the Edwards Report particularly suggested a new system of bonding, and there are


many other aspects of this problem. Perhaps as a result of pressure in this House, things have improved a great deal in the last year. We are looking at this at the moment, and will try to improve matters further.

Footwear (Exports to Japan)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the President of the Board of Trade what assistance he will give to exporters of British footwear to Japan.

Mr. Anthony Grant: The full range of Governmental aids to exporters is available to exporters of British footwear to Japan.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Government make clear in the trade discussions with Japan that we do not accept their arguments about the quota restriction on footwear imports, which violates every principle of international trade?

Mr. Grant: I understand the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he has made it earlier in the House. In the current trade negotiations with Japan we are pressing for improved access for British footwear.

Motor Insurance Premiums

Mr. Loughlin: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take in the matter of the proposed increases in premiums announced by leading insurers.

Mr. Anthony Grant: As I told the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on 16th July, we are not proposing to take any action on this matter.—[Vol. 803, c. 258.]

Mr. Loughlin: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a short time ago some remarks were made by him and his hon. and right hon. Friends about holding down the cost of living? Is he now saying that he is to do nothing when there is a proposed 25 per cent. increase in insurance premiums for motorists? Will he not do something in this do-nothing Government?

Mr. Grant: What I do know is that the Board of Trade has a statutory duty to ensure that the financial position of motor insurance companies is sound. Their financial position could be damaged

if premiums were held down during a period of rising costs.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the object of the increase of 25 per cent. in motoring insurance is to make the whole operation financially viable and no more? Is it not a disastrous policy to cause insurance companies to lose money heavily due to the carelessness of motorists?

Mr. Grant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Hon. Members opposite should bear in mind that one of the difficulties of the insurance companies has been the increases in cost caused by direct action by the previous Administration, particularly by selective employment tax.

An Hon. Member: When are you to take it off?

Stansted Airport (Noise)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of complaints from residents in the Ongar parishes of Essex about increasing noise at night and in the early morning from aircraft using Stansted airport; and whether he will take action to reduce it.

Mr. Corfield: Several prolonged periods of easterly winds and the seasonal increase in air traffic at Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow may have contributed to an increase in disturbance in the Ongar area, but we have had few complaints about it. I am, however, determined we shall spare no effort in keeping aicraft noise disturbance within bounds.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have received quite a number of complaints? Does not the distress caused to my constituents and others reinforce the need to put future airports near the coast and also to press on with v.t.o.l. aircraft?

Mr. Corfield: My hon. Friend says that he has had a lot of complaints, but so far as I am aware he has passed only one to the Board of Trade and that is the only one we have received. As to his suggestion about the location of airports, I beg him to look at some of the evidence of noise before he rashly runs into assumptions.

Hon. Members: Oh.

CIVIL SERVICE

Harrogate (Civil Service Posts)

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what proposals he has for redeploying Civil Service posts in Harrogate;
(2) what will be the effect of the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow upon the employment of civil servants in Harrogate; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The removal of the National Savings Bank to Glasgow is now expected to make surplus by 1976 some 220 established staff after allowing for normal wastage and for the placing of Bank staff with another Ministry of Defence unit moving into the town. Arrangements are also in hand for the placing of staff with other Departments in the area, and it is hoped that these measures will go a long way towards meeting the problem.

Mr. Ramsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider being more flexible than was the previous Administration in the application of development area policy over the redeployment of civil servants' work? When people enjoy living and working in a place and suitable accommodation is available, should not those factors also have consideration?

Mr. Howell: We shall certainly consider that, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that we shall look at Harrogate as sympathetically as circumstances allow. Our first task will be to place staff with other Government Departments in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Shore: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to a Department in which, the House knows, he has taken a special interest.
In the light of his reply, will the hon. Gentleman make clear at the outset that he intends to give full priority to development areas and other relevant considerations, such as where unemployment is a special problem, when deciding on the location of Civil Service offices?

Mr. Howell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. We intend

to give those considerations high priority in our dispersal policy generally.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Civil Servants)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) what steps he is taking to obtain replacement employment for the 220 civil servants who will lose their jobs in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West constituency when the Land Commission is abolished;
(2) what is his policy in regard to decentralisation of Government Departments to the provinces, in the light of the proposal to abolish the Land Commission and its headquarters in Newcastle.

Mr. David Howell: The Civil Service Department has already begun discussions with the Land Commission about arrangements for placing redundant staff in other Government employment. My right hon. Friend will be making a statement on the detailed arrangements later this afternoon. So far as dispersal is concerned, it is our policy, to the extent that the claims of operational efficiency allow, to continue the policy which we initiated in 1963, but I cannot give any undertaking at this stage with regard to particular locations.

Mr. Brown: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it represents a complete betrayal of civil servants who were rightly encouraged by the Labour Government to leave the London area, who settled down happily on Tyneside, and who have a right to expect relocation in the Tyneside area? Further, does he realise that what he has said is a betrayal of the pledges which his Government have given regarding the development areas? Will he take into account that the Land Commission was the first Government Department to be fully decentralised, and we have a right to expect a further Government Department or establishment in the Newcastle area to take its place?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is over-dramatising the situation somewhat.

Mr. Brown: The Minister should come to Tyneside and see.

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman should get used to the idea that not all Government Departments and establishments have an everlasting life. So far as


practicable, we shall place redundant staff in other Government employment in the area. We shall do our best in that respect.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the headquarters of British Road Services in Newcastle does not wish to be transferred to Harrogate, and will he allow it to stay in Newcastle?

Mr. Howell: I shall certainly bear that point in mind.

Businessmen

Mr. Ford: ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many businessmen he has now recruited into the Civil Service; and what salaries they are being paid.

Mr. David Howell: Six, Sir. I am circulating details about them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As far as their salaries are concerned, discussions are taking place with the companies concerned on the basis that the Government will contribute in each case approximately two-thirds of the total cost of the individual to the company.

Mr. Heffer: A complete waste of money.

Mr. Ford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recruitment of businessmen is in conformity with policies enunciated by Governor Reagan to the Institute of Directors last year, where he received a standing ovation, and will the hon. Gentleman say how many more of Governor Reagan's Goldwater-type policies his Government will be implementing?

Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that his own Government recruited businessmen. It is a perfectly sensible line, which most modern Governments are taking, and I am sorry he is against it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the Government would pay at least two-thirds of the salary these businessmen were receiving in business, and does that mean that there might be some salaries higher than what the Prime Minister is getting—and he is getting far too much?

Mr. Howell: I did not know about the hon. Gentleman's opinion on that point.

The details of these salaries have yet to be finally decided, and information about them will be laid before the House when they have been fixed.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is my hon. Friend aware also of the increase in value for money achieved by Governor Reagan when he brought businessmen into his administration?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of that. From the taxpayer's point of view, I have no doubt that all these businessmen will give excellent value for money.

Following are the details:
The following appointments have been announced:
Mr. R. East—Guest Keen and Nettlefolds Ltd.
Mr. A. Fogg—PA Management Consultants Ltd.
Mr. R. Hutton—Hambros Bank.
Mr. K. F. Lane—Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Ltd.
Mr. R. A. Meyjes—Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd.
Mr. D. G. Rayner—Marks and Spencer Ltd.

Fylde Coast (Civil Service Posts)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for redeploying Civil Service posts to the Fylde Coast.

Mr. David Howell: None for redeploying, Sir, but we expect to locate a central group to administer new attendance allowance work at the Department of Health and Social Security offices in Blackpool.

Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the inhabitants of the Fylde Coast will welcome that announcement, and will he bear in mind that the Fylde Coast fulfils all the requirements listed by the Location of Offices Bureau as necessary for the siting of office employment?

Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I am aware of the point he makes and I shall bear it in mind.

Mr. Sheldon: What effects in this respect does the hon. Gentleman expect to come from the introduction of the unified grading structure? Second, will he deny reports that the Government are dragging their feet in this matter?

Mr. Howell: The relation of the unified grading structure to this point is a bit


obscure. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about it, I shall be pleased to answer it. I have not heard the report which he asks me to deny, so I certainly would not wish to deny it.

Civil Servants

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the review of the number of civil servants employed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Minister for the Civil Service which Departments have been instructed to produce cost reduction plans.

Mr. David Howell: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) on 9th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 842.]

Mr. Stokes: Will my hon. Friend take it that, while we wish to see the review conducted in a humane and orderly fashion, it is essential that a decision should be reached as soon as possible to end uncertainty and to show that Her Majesty's Government mean business in this important matter?

Mr. Howell: I realise that, but we must look into the question in an orderly and systematic way. We intend to look at possible economies in all Departments and all areas. When we have reached clear and sensible decisions, we shall announce them.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the businessmen recruits to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred be in any way subject to the Civil Service rules, and what will be their relationship to the Civil Service?

Mr. Howell: They are based in the Civil Service Department, but they are responsible directly to Ministers.

Statutory Boards (Salaries)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister for the Civii Service why he will not take steps to reduce the salaries or extend the working week of part-time chairmen and members of statutory boards who spend only two days per week at their

part-time work and as chairmen receive £6,000 per annum.

Mr. David Howell: There is no part-time chairman of a statutory board who receives £6,000 a year and spends two days a week on the work.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a Question, I have been told that, on average, these part-time chairmen do work two days a week, and there are such people as the chairman of the B.B.C. who does two days a week for £6,000 a year? Is it not a bit too much to tell the dockers that they cannot have a basic rate of £20 a week when people of that sort are getting £57 a day?

Mr. Howell: The chairmen of statutory boards put in the hours necessary to do the job. If the hon. Gentleman has a point to raise about the chairman of the B.B.C., he should address it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

HON. MEMBER FOR MID-ULSTER

Mr. Latham: On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have no wish to weary the House or to try your patience, Mr. Speaker, nor do I wish to devalue my contribution by rising too many times on similar points. But I suggest that some hon. Members opposite might treat the matter with seriousness, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has pointed out that any hon. Member might find himself in the difficulty to which I shall refer, and hon. Members might take note of that.
The point I wish to raise is one which I must submit is too urgent to await the debate tomorrow night [Interruption.] Those Members who are courteous enough to listen will recognise that I am right in my submission that it is a point which must be settled this afternoon.
An important constitutional issue has emerged as a result of my trip to Belfast yesterday. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in reply to my original submission


about the position of hon. Members who may be imprisoned, and in reply to other submissions since, you have drawn a distinction between the law and the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Government and the rules of this House. It has, I think, also been established that the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, as well as describing the circumstances in which the oath must be taken, suggests that a Member is acting against the law if he sits or votes without being sworn in, except in the case of a contested election for a Speaker, as you told the House recently.
But since then it has been established that by custom a Member who is not sworn in may not table Parliamentary Questions, and there may be other functions which an imprisoned M.P. who was sworn in could otherwise exercise that we shall subsequently find custom precludes an unsworn Member from doing.
On Monday the Home Secretary indicated that the taking of the oath was a matter for the officers of the House. A deputation representing the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) went to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs on Monday to request that she should be paroled to attend at this House to take the oath. The Ministry rested on a memorandum which it said it had received from the British Home Office dated 15th July, indicating that if the hon. Lady came to the House it would not even then be possible for her, as a prisoner serving sentence, to take the oath. It seemed to me that, in view of what had been said in this Chamber recently, it was quite irregular for the Home Office to appear to be ruling on a matter which the Home Secretary had said clearly was not one for him but a matter for officers of the House.
I have since checked the matter with the Home Office, which told me that it was acting as messenger and that it had been advised by officers of the House that there was no precedent for a Member in prison coming to the House to be sworn in, and that the law and custom of the House were against the prospect of such a Member being able to be sworn in were he or she to arrive at the Table to do so. It seems extraordinary that one should be able first to say that there is

no precedent for a matter and then to say that by law and custom something cannot happen, because if there is no precedent there surely is no law and custom which can be applied to a unique situation.
The urgency of the matter is that representations are being made to Mr. Porter today—he has, in fact, been telephoned—asking whether he will authorise that the hon. Lady, if she is not to be paroled, should be brought to the House, if necessary in custody, to take the oath. Mr. Porter's reply this morning has been that he will consider the matter and give an answer later this afternoon. I have just had a message from the B.B.C. in Belfast that Major Chichester-Clark, Captain Long and Mr. Porter have been meeting, and it seems that the conclusion to which they come may well be dependent on the outcome of what you now say, Mr. Speaker, in reply to this point of order.
I submit that the matter is urgent today in that unless the hon. Member were enabled tomorrow to come to the House to be sworn in it would be too late. It is not true to say that the swearing in is now irrelevant since we are likely to go into recess on Friday. There is the possibility of a recall of Parliament, which we know about. There is the matter of asking Questions meanwhile, the possible effect on other functions of the hon. Lady as Member of Parliament, and certain other matters which you have said it is not the custom to refer to on the Floor of the House.
I am asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you will be prepared to rule unequivocally that if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster can get here there will be no impediment to her being sworn in. If you feel unable to give an immediate Ruling, may I at least request that you give consideration to the question and rule later today, since the value of the Ruling with regard to the hon. Lady and the decision of the Northern Ireland Government will be gone unless it can be given by you today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) has raised, with his customary courtesy, an aspect of the very serious and unique position that concerns a Member of the House.
I understand that at some time tomorrow we shall debate the whole question of the position of a Member of Parliament who finds himself or herself imprisoned on a criminal charge and most of what the hon. Gentleman has raised may be raised in that debate.
What has happened between the hon. Gentleman and the Home Secretary is no concern of Mr. Speaker. He must raise those matters with the Home Secretary and members of the Government.
All I can rule on, as I have done consistently, is the matter of order. I have set out the principle that governs the rules of the House, as far as the orders of the House are concerned, that Parliament cannot set itself above the law unless it chooses to do so by decision, and certainly not by decision of Mr. Speaker.
I must set out exactly what the position is on the issue of swearing. It is provided by the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, that the oath shall be:
solemnly and publicly made and subscribed … by every Member of the House of Commons at the Table in the Middle of the said House, and whilst a full House of Commons is there duly sitting, with their Speaker in his Chair…
That provision cannot be set aside except by amending legislation.
A formal request by the House that one of its Members be temporarily released from imprisonment in order to take the oath would be entirely without precedent. That is a matter of fact.
As for whether I can rule on a hypothesis; Mr. Speaker has never ruled on hypotheses and the hypothesis that the hon. Member has put to me is a matter which the House would have to consider if the circumstances arose that those in charge of Miss Devlin asked whether she might come on parole to the House to take the oath. I cannot rule on that; I cannot rule on a hypothesis.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. I ask you Mr. Speaker, to consider one or two other points arising from the submission of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham). I say without patronage, and he will understand this, that he has taken up this cause when he is comparatively new in the House. He will probably not know, although we all know, that no hon. Member in addressing the House can ever

pray in aid that he has been advised by the Clerks, because the Clerks are your servants, Mr. Speaker, as all officers of the House are your servants. I suggest that if any rather dogmatic ruling has been given and has influenced Ministers, unless it came through you, Mr. Speaker, that advice was improperly given.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, you have not dealt with the narrow point. Assuming that the hon. Lady presented herself, it is not for you to ask her how she got here. Once she is here and she is standing at the Bar, it is not consonant with your power to ask how she got there. It does not matter whether there is a precedent. There would be no notes in Erskine May unless a few Speakers had made a few precedents, and it would be a dull Speaker who never got a note in Erskine May. If she presents herself at the Bar, it is not such a hypothesis.
All I am asking you to do, Mr. Speaker, is to agree to the submission that I am now making, without committing yourself, that if any Member were now to appear at the Bar to be sworn you would not ask, "How did you get here? Are you released from gaol? Are you on parole? How did you get through the Cenral Lobby?" You have no powers and you do not count outside the House, although inside you are all-powerful. If the hon. Lady presents herself at the Bar, you have no alternative but to call her to the Table to be sworn.
I will give you a precedent. [Laughter.] This is a serious business. I am prepared to keep the House on it for a long time and it would be better if hon. Members listened. On his election, Mr. Speaker Peel, one of the great Speakers of all time, said that he refused to allow the House by a stratagem of hon. Members opposite to keep Bradlaugh from taking the oath. On that occasion, the Leader of the House, who was named Hicks-Beach, rose on a point of order. Mr. Speaker Peel said, "The right hon. Gentleman himself has not been sworn yet", and he called Bradlaugh to the Table.
With great respect, and you know that I have great personal respect for you, Mr. Speaker, let me urge you to forget the Clerks. They do not have to set the precedents but only to give advice. I am asking you to agree that if the hon.


Lady appears you will have no recourse but to have her sworn. That is my view.
As soon as my hon. Friend told me that he intended to raise this matter and wanted some support, I looked up all the authorities I could find, and my opinion is as good as that of anybody else. I hope, therefore, that you will agree that what I have said is true. If you agree, you are not asked to do any more. The Home Office is quite prepared to invoke this country's taxation to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and to send troops in jeopardy of their lives in Northern Ireland, and it has the power if necessary to follow the civilised practice of bringing a Member to the House.
I make one final point. It is without precedent. I hope that it will never occur again. We are in a curious position which might occur at any time, with a Member travelling abroad, for instance, that between the time of election and taking the oath a Member is taken into custody. The penalty of this is the disenfranchisement of a whole constituency of 60,000 or 70,000 people.
I am not saying and I do not say anything to condone anything the hon. Lady has done. The courts have dealt with her action. I do not detract from the offence and I express no opinion. I merely say that to disenfranchise a whole constituency for a period of six months, or whatever it is, is a serious matter. When she takes the oath, whenever it is, she will presumably collect the whole of her back salary for duties which she has been completely prevented from doing.
Those are the considerations. In the words of your illustrious predcessor, Mr. Speaker, when he said that he intended to stop the House from making a fool of itself, I hope that you will stop the House from making a fool of itself, that you will give way on my submission and leave it to the good sense of the Home Office, if there is any, to get in touch with the Parliament of Northern Ireland to right this wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The House is deeply moved by the submission of the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who has considerable experience of parliamentary matters. All of us remember the Bradlaugh case.
May I pick out only the serious issues which the hon. Member has raised? All

the Rulings of the House are made by Mr. Speaker. He accepts the responsibility. He is advised by the Clerks, but the Rulings are his. If the Rulings of this "dull" Speaker appear in Erskine May in the years ahead, what will be in Erskine May will be the Rulings that he has made on this issue.
Secondly, most of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman are matters not for Mr. Speaker but for the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker is as aware as the right hon. Gentleman of the disabilities under which the hon. Lady suffers because she is in prison on a criminal charge. Mr. Speaker can do nothing about that. It is for the House to decide whether the House can do anything about it.
What Mr. Speaker has said in his Ruling this afernoon is that he understands that the issues raised by the hon. Member for Paddington, North and by the right hon. Gentleman, himself a member of the Committee of Privileges, are to be discussed by the House some time tomorrow when the House must express its views.
Finally, Mr. Speaker is not prepared to rule on hypotheses. He can rule only on whether the hon. Lady can take the oath if, as the right hon. Member dramatically said, she stood at the Bar wishing to take the oath.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Whereas several of these matters can be discussed in the debate tomorrow, may I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, two matters which should bear on the decision and which, I submit, require the matter to be dealt with even more urgently.
The first is that there is a precedent closer to the case before the House than any which has been mentioned. It is the case of Lord Cochrane in the year 1815. He was charged in the courts with an offence of fraud and was imprisoned on that count. But he was brought to the House and the Sneaker on that occasion insisted that Lord Cochrane should have the right, although he was not sworn in at the time, to present his case to the House. I would invite your attention to that precedent.
Secondly, in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, you have said that no Speaker could rule


on a hypothesis. But it appears that somebody—not you, Mr. Speaker, and not, I assume, the officials of this House—has conveyed information to the Northern Ireland Parliament or some of their Ministers saying that even if the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster were released on parole she would not be able to take the oath in this House. That somebody, we do not know who, is ruling on a hypothesis, without your guidance, without the guidance of the officials of the House, and, I trust, without any intervention by the Home Office. We want to know who has given this ruling. If you could tell the House that there is no basis whatever for anyone to suggest that if the hon. Lady appeared in the House she might not be able to take the oath, and were so to rule, that would greatly clarify the situation and we might be able to resolve it before Parliament rises.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North has in my opinion done a service to every Member of Parliament who believes in liberty, by raising this matter. If, Mr. Speaker, you are not prepared to rule in the sense I have suggested so that the information can be conveyed to Northern Ireland on the authority of this House of Commons, I ask that you should rule on this matter later in the day so that the question of the rights of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster should not be settled by somebody, we do not know who, in Northern Ireland who has no responsibility to this House, who has no authority to speak on Rulings in this House, and who has no authority to speak in this country.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I seem to be at cross-purposes. I have ruled on this distressing problem from time to time. The rules that govern the House and the Rulings I have given are the only Rulings that matter. Whatever anybody has said to anybody else is a matter the hon. Gentleman must take up, not with Mr. Speaker, but with those whom he thinks have given advice. I can rule only as I have done. I have set out crystally clear, several times, the position about the taking of the oath, which must be in the House. I have said that I am not prepared to rule on hypo

thetical cases. If a case were to happen, then I would rule on it.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I trespass on your patience, Mr. Speaker, a moment further. Is it correct that it should be known to everybody that there is no basis whatever, on the foundation of any statement made by anybody in the House, for believing that if the hon. Lady were to present herself on parole she might not be able to take the oath?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to do what I have not done. I will not rule on a hypothesis.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, a very clear question? If the hon. Lady presents herself at the Bar of the House, will Mr. Speaker give a very clear Ruling that she can then take the oath in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not gathered the purport of the discussion.

Mr. Heffer: I have gathered the purport very well.

Mr. Speaker: The word "if" always introduces a hypothesis. I am not prepared to rule hypothetically.

Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order. Would you tell the House whether you consider that you have any authority vested in you at any time to refuse any hon. Member the oath at the Table of this House?

Mr. Speaker: It is the same question put in another way.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. George Thomas: I will submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am not asking you to rule on a hypothesis. I am asking you to tell the House clearly and frankly whether you consider that you have any authority vested in you by this House to refuse an hon. Member the right to take the oath?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I simply carry out the law.

Hon. Members: What is the law?

Mr. Speaker: The law is that the oath must be taken by a Member at the Table in the presence of the House and in the presence of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Heffer: It is up to the Government to do something about it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Noise will not solve any problems either in Northern Ireland or in the House of Commons.

Mr. McNamara: Surely the remedy is that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, as the Minister responsible—

Mr. Heffer: Where is he?

Mr. McNamara: —who I believe was notified by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North that this matter would be raised, should arrange for the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster to be able to present herself at the Bar of the House. On that occasion it would be for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether or not that Lady is in fact able to take the oath.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, that is what I have said. It is not a matter for me.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One point of order at a time. Mr. Benn.

Mr. Benn: The last occasion on which a person purporting to be a Member sought to take the oath and was refused was myself, in 1961, when after having been elected in Bristol, South I returned to the House and sought to take the oath. The Speaker then told me, and made it clear in his Ruling in the House, that he was governed by a Resolution of the House that prevented my entering the Chamber. The Speaker made it absolutely clear on that occasion that he had no power save the power given to him by the House. There is no Resolution of this Parliament that gives you power to refuse to any hon. Member who appears at the Bar of the House the taking of the oath.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is instructing me and saying what I have said before. I will repeat it. I am afraid that it is at present purely hypothetical. It is a matter which the House would have to consider if the hon. Member presented herself. [Interruption.] Order. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time. I am dealing

with one point of order. This is exactly in accordance with the Ruling I have given.

Mr. Benn: The point which I am putting to you, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. Unless there is a Resolution of the House telling you not to receive a Member who wishes to take the oath, you have no power now—this is not hypothetical—to refuse an elected Member with a Writ of Return who comes to the Bar and seeks to take the oath. This is not a hypothetical question; it does not relate to the hon. Member in question. This is the law of Parliament. By what authority could such a Ruling be held to be hypothetical?

Mr. Speaker: It is clearly hypothetical. We are dealing with the unique problem of an hon. Member who is in gaol on a criminal charge. I am asked what I would do if she were released from gaol to come to Parliament to take the oath. I can rule on that only when it happens.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to the points of order which have been raised, Mr. Speaker. I recognise at once that this is a very important matter for the House of Commons and that my duty as Leader of the House of Commons is to every minority, even to minorities of one. Therefore, the position of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster is exceptionally a concern of mine and of the House of Commons.
As to the general position of Members who find themselves detained in prison, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the Motion on Privileges tomorrow night when, I understand, the circumstances of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster can be debated.
Another issue has been raised which seems to be very much a matter for the House authorities and for you, Mr. Speaker. If before we have debated the matter and before the Committee of Privileges has had the opportunity of discussing it, the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster were to present herself at the Bar of the House to take the oath, the Government, as I understand it, have no authority to say whether she should take the oath. It would be a very sad day for Parliament if the Executive had


any such right. I know of no such right.
Whether the hon. Lady can present herself at the Bar of the House must, I imagine, be a matter for the Northern Ireland Government. I am prepared to discuss that with my right hon. Friend to discover what the position is. I hope that you will confirm, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to the House of Commons, that were the hon. Lady to present herself here the decision about whether she takes the oath is not something in which the Government have any standing. I do not know the precedents, but—and we wish to help you in this matter, Mr. Speaker—if the hon. Lady presented herself I hope that the House of Commons would carefully consider its position, because this is a very important matter affecting the Privileges and position of the House.

Mr. Latham: rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will realise that we are discussing a very grave issue. Whether we have dealt with the matter adequately or not—and we have important business ahead of us—it is in order for the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter to continue with his point of order.

Mr. Latham: All that I wish to do is to say how much I appreciate the statement of the Leader of the House. I understand how difficult it is for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on hypothetical matters, but I draw your attention to the fact that somebody, in the name of this House, has ruled hypothetically, purporting, it would seem without your authority or that of this House, to pronounce on something in advance. Since the Northern Ireland Government have sheltered behind this hypothetical ruling, someone may be guilty of a very serious contempt of the House by making such a ruling without our knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: The rulings on this important matter are, as the Government of Northern Ireland know, the rulings which I have made from the Chair in the House. I am sure that the House notes the frank and forthcoming statement of the Leader of the House.

LAND COMMISSION (ABOLITION)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, I will make a statement about the Land Commission.
As announced in the Queen's Speech, a Bill will be introduced during the present Session to abolish the Land Commission. The Bill will provide for the abolition of the betterment levy. Provision will be made, either in the same Bill or in later legislation this Session, for development value realised from future land transactions to be dealt with through the normal system of taxation of profits and capital gains.
Betterment levy will not be payable in respect of chargeable acts or events taking place after today. This means, for example, that a sale of land which is completed tomorrow, or a development project which is started tomorrow, will be free of levy. Where completion follows a contract which was made today or earlier, provision will be made to ensure that the full amount of the gain is charged to tax.
These proposals do not disturb the existing exemption of owner-occupiers of houses from capital gains tax.
The present law about betterment levy will continue to apply to chargeable acts or events that have already taken place. Levy will still be payable on assessments already made and to be made under the existing law.
The Commission's programme of land acquisition has been brought to a halt. Proposals for land acquisition which have not yet reached an advanced stage are being withdrawn; and the Land Commission is already informing the people affected. Proposals which have reached an advanced stage are being reviewed as a matter of urgency, and decisions will be made known to those concerned as soon as possible. Arrangements are being made for the orderly disposal of the land in the Commission's possession. Provision will be made in the legislation for the transfer to an appropriate public body of the assets and liabilities remaining on the dissolution of the Commission.
The Commission's staff of about 1,000 will be dispersed progressively over the


coming months. The arrangements will be fully discussed with the national and departmental staff sides.
The availability of land for development is essential to the stability of land prices and to the revival of the house-building programme. The Land Commission has failed either to stabilise land prices or to make a worthwhile contribution to the release of land in the areas of acute land shortage. I am discussing with local authorities how they can best help with these problems through the release of more land and in other ways. I am confident that the measures we are taking will result in an increase in the volume of land coming forward for development and will be of real benefit to the housing programme.

Mr. Crosland: I have three questions. First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will watch with great anxiety over the months ahead to see whether this decision leads to an increase and not a decrease in the amount of land coming forward for development, particularly in areas where the shortage of land in the right places is inhibiting the housing programme.
Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that an increase in land values is not on all fours with, for example, capital gains made on Stock Exchange securities? Does this represent the end of efforts by successive Governments to secure for the community as a whole a proper share of betterment?
Thirdly, have not the Government learnt the lesson of the last three weeks, that every attempt at instant government which they have made has led only to chaos and confusion?

Mr. Walker: On the first question about land release, our view is that abolition of the Land Commission will help to solve the problem. It is reasonable that the Opposition should want to watch the situation. But the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Land Commission has not been very successful in obtaining land in places where there is considerable pressure on land. We believe that the betterment levy has added to the cost of land. Certainly land prices have risen very considerably during the period of the Land Commission. We think that the correct way of dealing with the matter is through the present frame

work of taxation, which will have the added attraction of being much more simple for people to comprehend and for the Government to administer.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third question, this is an action which should be taken swiftly.

Mr. Murton: May I be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his magnificent statement? Can he give an assurance that it will be possible to collect development value without any increase in the staff of the Inland Revenue?

Mr. Walker: Yes. Not only will there be a saving of staff on the Land Commission side, but the complications of the Land Commission were such that the removal of the betterment levy will also help to reduce pressure on the staff of the Inland Revenue.

Mr. Bagier: Under the right hon. Gentleman's legislation, how will he provide protection against the increased prices that will have to be paid by local authorities? What recourse will they have for recompensing themselves against these increased prices if the betterment does not go to the community as a whole? With the displacement of the Land Commission headquarters, what steps will the Minister take to replace the important employment which it provides in my region? Does he envisage, for example, replacing it with an investigation team to look after land racketeers who will make hay out of what he has said?

Mr. Walker: During the period of the Land Commission and the betterment levy, land prices have risen to both local authorities and private people. The Commission has not succeeded in reducing land prices but, in my opinion, has added to them. About one-quarter of the staff of the Land Commission—just over 200 people—are employed in the Newcastle area. We are, obviously, having discussions with the staff there and I hope that ways can be found of ensuring that the staff are fully utilised in or near the area.

Mr. Rossi: My right hon. Friend's announcement will indeed bring the greatest satisfaction not only to those of us on this side who have opposed the Land Commission and the betterment


levy since their inception, but also to people throughout the country who have suffered from the levy. Will my right hon. Friend kindly add to their delight and satisfaction by making the abolition of the incidence of the levy retrospective to a date which coincides with the change of Government policy and which will not cause him complications with capital gains tax, which must be one of the factors in his mind—namely, 18th June?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that we have brought some delight, but we cannot bring complete delight and we are not going in for retrospective legislation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What powers does the Minister have to say that he will no longer charge development levy upon transactions which take place between this date and the passing into law of any amending legislation?

Mr. Walker: The same right as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Budget.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the great arguments for the measure which he has announced was that there should be a net reduction—I emphasise "net reduction"—in the size of the bureaucracy? What sort of net reduction has he in mind?

Mr. Walker: Certainly, over a period of time, the staff of the Land Commission will be completely dispersed and this will bring a reduction of 1,000. I believe that there will also be a reduction in the staff of the Inland Revenue who are working on these matters. I might add, too, that there should be a considerable reduction in the staff of offices outside the Government who have had to deal with this complicated legislation.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister guarantee that none of the land which has been acquired by the Commission will be sold to public speculators for a price less than was paid for it originally?

Mr. Walker: Certainly, the Government intend to dispose of the land in a proper way at the best possible price which can be obtained.

Mr. Evelyn King: While welcoming the abolition of the Land Commission, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a real problem as regards bringing more land on to the market for development purposes and that he has it in his power, by using the appeal machinery against unreasonable decisions by local planning authorities, to solve that problem'? Will he undertake to exercise a much stronger influence in that sense?

Mr. Walker: I believe that the release of land by local authorities is almost the most important task in terms of the whole housing programme. We are urgently discussing with local authorities, particularly in areas with serious housing problems, ways in which we can increase the flow of the release of land. On some occasions the difficulty is due to delays in waiting for various decisions outside the control of the local authorities concerned. I am trying to hasten those decisions so that there is no proper excuse for delay in the release of land. I would urge all local authorities to go in for a long-term programme of land release instead of releasing an acre at a time and thereby putting up land prices.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the Minister realise that this action may well destroy the hopes that we had of effective joint development of separate parcels of land, which is extremely urgent from a planning point of view?

Mr. Walker: I believe that there is plenty of power in the hands of local authorities to see that that is done.

Sir F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend has fairly recognised that any change in the law must mean anomalies as to timing; these are unavoidable. I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify one point. What will be the position of those whose transactions were completed before today's date but on whom no assessment has yet been either made or served—in other words, they have as yet had no notification? Will they receive a subsequent notification or will it go by the board?

Mr. Walker: If it is a chargeable act to which betterment levy should have applied before today's date they will be charged for betterment levy.

Mr. Bob Brown: Since my constituency interests are severely affected, I should have thought that the Minister or his Department would have been courteous enough to inform me of his intended statement. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite are not interested in their constituents, I am certainly interested in mine. Over 220 of my constituents are affected by the Minister's statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put a question. He can put what he is saying in question form.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister note that it would have been much better for him to have been able to embody in his statement that discussions have already taken place with the staff involved and to indicate what their future will be? The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the operation of the Land Commission has increased the price of land. Does he consider that as a result of the abolition of the Commission there will be a reduction in the price of land for building?

Mr. Walker: I believe that the Land Commission has had a detrimental effect on the price of land. That is one of the reasons why we are abolishing it. Besides Newcastle, there are 20 or 30 towns where a quite substantial number of staff are employed by the Land Commission. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree that in a matter like this it would have been unreasonable to inform every hon. Member with a constituency interest that the statement was being made; and the details of the statement could not possibly be made available. As to the staff in Newcastle, I have already said that we are having talks with the Chairman of the Land Commission. As a former Minister, the hon. Member will know that any Government will take the greatest care in the way that staff are handled.

Mr. Tugendhat: As my right hon. Friend is well aware, one of the most disagreeable and surprising aspects of the Land Commission's activity was that when large property companies wished to put pressure on owners of small freehold plots of land to sell they invoked the assistance of the Land Commission which would write letters which, although they had no statutory authority, certainly put the fear of God into small freeholders.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that neither his Ministry nor any other Department of the present Government will intervene in private transactions in that disagreeable fashion?

Mr. Walker: I will do all in my power to see that there is not a repetition of the considerable amount of human misery which has been caused by the operation of the Act.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that it was impossible to tell everyone concerned about the statement which he intended to make. Did he tell the Scottish Office? As he knows, more than one Minister is involved. The Secretary of State for Scotland has direct involvement. Is there a representative of the Scottish Office present? Has the Minister discussed the problem of those employed in Cumbernauld? How will they be re-employed in that area?

Mr. Walker: All questions of staff are being discussed at Departmental and national level, and these discussions will look after these matters in detail. As for consultations with the Scottish Office, yes, they did take place.

Mr. Ross: Where are the Scottish Ministers?

Mr. Sandys: Would my right hon. Friend assure us that releasing land will not involve any undue encroachment on the Green Belt?

Mr. Walker: Yes.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I have on three occasions at Business Questions sought to have this statement made which particularly closely concerns my constituents and upon which I sought to ask a Question of the Minister now? May I crave your indulgence to put a question now to him?

Mr. Speaker: Many hon. Members for many good reasons wanted to ask questions on this statement, and on the point of order we discussed before, and on the statement which has yet to come, and after that we are to discuss a very important matter. We must move on.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House on an earlier day this week said he would make sure that Ministers who were likely to be engaged in a particular statement or debate in the House would be in attendance on the House. Clearly, the Scottish Office is involved in this matter and in this decision which the right hon. Gentleman has just made about the abolition of the Land Commission, and yet there is not a single Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench. This is the second day in succession when a Minister responsible for answering a debate, or upon a statement, has been absent. I would like the Leader of the House to take it up with the Scottish Office, and to point out that it is the Scottish Ministers' duty and responsibility to be here to listen and to answer, if need be to debate, questions specifically relating to the problem in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: The point which the hon. Member has made will have been duly noted. We must move on. Lord Balniel.

MULTI-ROLE COMBAT AIRCRAFT

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Balniel): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the multi-rôle combat aircraft.
As the House knows, the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy agreed last year to enter upon the project definition phase of this project. The results of that phase and subsequent discussions between the partners confirmed the feasibility of developing a twin-seat multi-rôle variable geometry aircraft which would meet the requirements of all three countries.
On coming into office, this Government reviewed this project and concluded that it offered the most effective and economical means of meeting the requirements of the Royal Air Force for replacement aircraft in the strike, reconnaissance and air defence rôles in the later 1970s and the 1980s. We also recognised that the project offered an opportunity for a European collaborative venture of the

greatest technical and industrial importance.
We have accordingly made arrangements with our German partners to begin work on the first major development phase of the aircraft. This phase is designed to lead to the flight of the first prototype and will last about three and a half years. A thorough review of progress will be made at the end of one year in the light of the more refined assessments of cost, timescale and performance which will then be available.
The Government of Italy are, in present circumstances, not immediately able to subscribe to these arrangements, but are expected to reach a final decision within the next few weeks. Should the Government of Italy decide not to continue, we have agreed with the Germans to proceed bilaterally. On the assumption that Italy decides to continue, as we hope, expected total requirements of aircraft for all three countries would be about 900 of which our requirement is planned to be between 350 and 400. The costs of the total programme are to be shared according to the relative numbers of aircraft. The estimated cost of the first phase of development, on which we have now agreed, is of the order of £250 million, of which the United Kingdom share would be somewhat less than half.

Mr. Healey: While welcoming the fact that the Government have confirmed the judgment of their predecessors that this is or can be a first-rate aircraft which will meet the needs of the Royal Air Force, underline the possibilities of international co-operation, and give a great boost to the British aerospace industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the value of the aircraft depends critically on maintaining the cost and performance as at present planned?
In the light of this, would he assure the House that the review which is due to take place in a year's time will be a thorough one, and that the possibility of further aircraft will be reassessed at that point? Secondly, on the question of Italian participation, while recognising the value of Italian participation as at present planned, may I ask whether the Minister accepts that, were the Italians to reduce their ultimate order for the aircraft substantially, the additional cost of third party participation might not be


outweighed by the advantages of the project, and will he bear this in mind before reaching a final decision on Italian participation?

Lord Balniel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I was anxious to find some part of his defence policy which commanded my full confidence and to bring it to the House as soon as possible. I can assure him that the review which will be undertaken at the end of the first year will indeed be a very thorough one. This is, of course, an extremely expensive project, but, as I have explained, the costs are spread over a great number of years, and this aircraft is intended to meet Royal Air Force requirements for strike and reconnaissance and air defence rôles. I equally accept the point he made about the participation of a third country in the development of this aircraft.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While welcoming the statement my hon. Friend has made this afternoon, may I ask him whether the Government have given the fullest possible thought to ensuring that the basis of the share-out as between the nations in producing this aircraft will be those most capable of doing each appropriate part rather than an egalitarian multi-national basis?

Lord Balniel: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the case.

Mr. Maclennan: While welcoming the hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask whether he would say what consideration has been given to the possible attachment of penalty clauses in the event of a breakdown or the review not proving satisfactory at the end of the first year? What arrangements will there be for withdrawal from the arrangements?

Lord Balniel: Yes. If the programme is not running according to plan there are arrangements for the partners to agree together about steps to be taken to rectify the situation, and it would be open to a partner to withdraw completely.

Mr. Mather: Can my hon. Friend say when this aircraft will come into service?

Lord Balniel: Yes. I would expect the multi-rôle combat aircraft to start coming into service in the second half of the decade.

Mr. Hastings: While welcoming this statement, may I ask my hon. Friend if he can confirm that the operational requirement of this aircraft is more or less exactly the same as that of the TSR 2 some 15 years ago or more and that had we started to produce the TSR 2 we should have had by now sales, instead of just producing the aircraft? Would he consider setting up an inquiry into the reasons why the jigs and tools for the TSR 2 were destroyed by order of the last Government?

Lord Balniel: There are some features of the operational requirements of this aircraft which are the same as those of the TSR 2, but there have been developments, and there are differences in the operational requirement.

Mr. Warren: Would my hon. Friend consider the fact that the aircraft design leadership is being held by the Germans, who have no experience in this field, while the British have much superior experience? Secondly, would he consider the position where the Americans are being allowed to bid on the equipment for this aircraft on an equal basis with the British, Germans and French?

Lord Balniel: With respect to my hon. Friend, that is not exactly in accordance with the facts. I will write to him and explain the position if that would be convenient.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. We must move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered, That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered, That this day Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill shall have precedence of the Business of Supply, but the precedence of such other Business over the Business of Supply shall not prevent this day being an allotted day under Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

SOUTH AFRICA (SALE OF ARMS)

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins—and it begins an hour late—I make no complaint about that, it is a matter for the House—may I announce to the House that 44 hon. and right hon. Members wish to take part in the debate in addition to those on the Front Bench. They include seven new hon. Members, five ex-Ministers and six who wish to make maiden speeches. It will be impossible for me to call in this important debate all who wish to make maiden speeches. If those who are trying to do so will come to see me I will give an indication of whether there is any likelihood of their being called.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I beg to move,
That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to abandon its present intention to authorise the sale of arms to South Africa contrary to the United Nations resolution, since this would threaten the survival of the Commonwealth as a multi-racial community and inflict grave damage on the political, economic and strategic interests of this country.
The Motion asks the Government to abandon their present intention, or perhaps one might say their policy, if policy is not too definite a word to use in view of what we have heard recently about it. We must admit at once that it is not yet absolutely certain what the Government's intention or policy is, and one of the things we shall want to know in the debate is exactly what is their intention and what is their policy.
None the less, there are certain pointers to what the Government have in mind. First, we have the statement by the right

hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on Monday last. If he will forgive my saying so, the statement was not quite as lucid as the importance of the subject would require, and some of us felt that he might have done a little better if he had provided himself with a driving mirror in which he could have observed the facial reactions of the Prime Minister to the statements which he was making. I have read the statement very carefully more than once, and I think it is fair to say that what it means is that the Government want to sell certain arms to South Africa, but that they have not yet taken a firm decision to do so, and that that decision will be in part influenced by the consultations which they are having with Commonwealth countries. I hope at least that is right because, if the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, it is very difficult to see what he did mean.
The second pointer is the letter sent by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to the Prime Ministers of other Commonwealth countries. I think we need no longer be as coy as the Prime Minister was about the confidentiality of the exact text of that letter. Now that an American news agency has distributed it and we can all read it in this morning's Daily Telegraph, we need not bother about the Prime Minister's claim that it would be a breach of confidence to reveal what was in it.
Here again, what it means is still not quite clear. The Daily Telegraph, whose commitment to the Conservative cause is surely unimpeachable, interprets it as follows: that the Prime Minister's letter made it clear that the Government intend a resumption of a limited commitment to sell arms to South Africa. Is that the right interpretation of the Prime Minister's letter? If it is, and if the letter made it clear that the Government intend a resumption, that is not in line with what the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary led us to suppose on Monday.
The third pointer is the statement by Mr. Vorster of South Africa. He tells us more robustly and more plainly than either the Prime Minister or the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that he has been assured by the present Government, both privately and officially, that they will sell certain arms to South Africa, and


he goes on to say that he is sure they will do it because they are honourable men. There is a slight ring of Mark Antony's oration about that last phrase.
So are they all; all honourable men.
Their difficulty is how to be honourable in both directions. If they have not made a firm decision to sell certain arms to South Africa they have been deceiving Mr. Vorster unless Mr. Vorster is not telling the truth, and if that is the Government's view perhaps they will say so. If, on the other hand, they have firmly resolved already to sell arms to South Africa, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was less than frank with the House on Monday, and the so-called consultations with the Commonwealth countries are plainly bogus.
There is one other matter on which we are not quite clear. I think we got it right on Monday that the Government might reach their decision—if they have not already privately done so in defiance of their obligation to the House—privately in their own breasts during the recess, but we were assured that, although they might possibly communicate such a decision privately to South Africa and other Commonwealth countries, there would be no public announcement of such a decision before it was made in this House. This was what we understood on Monday. But only yesterday in another place the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said:
I would not be prepared to say that decisions would not be taken and not announced while Parliament is not sitting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 21st July, 1970; Vol. 311, c. 835.]
Does what Lord Carrington said mean that we may find that the decision is not only made and privately communicated but is announced to the public while the House is not sitting? If the answer to that question is "Yes, that could happen", that is a breach of what we were given to understand on Monday. If the answer to that question is "No, that could not happen", then Lord Carrington has got it wrong. The first thing that we must do is to discover what the Government's policy is. Have they already taken a firm decision, as Mr. Vorster believes, or have they not, as they told us on Monday? What is the position about any public announcement of a decision during the recess?
We make the charitable assumption that the Government were telling us the truth on Monday and that, therefore, they could still be persuaded to abandon this intention. In the motion, that is what we hope to persuade them to do. Why do we seek to do that? I would put first the United Nations aspect of this matter. The history of that is as follows: in 1963 there was a Motion before the Security Council recommending nations not to sell arms to South Africa. The British Government could have prevented that motion passing. They could have vetoed it. They did not. They agreed to it and let it pass.
I regard the use of the veto as a very serious matter, only to be undertaken in the gravest circumstances. But I believe that it is better, if the British Government are firmly convinced that they cannot and will not carry out a Resolution, to veto it rather than let it pass with no intention of carrying it out. It is not to the point to say that this was not a mandatory resolution, because the resolution recommended us, among others, not to sell arms to South Africa. If Britain intended to sell arms to South Africa she could not, without chicanery, let a motion go through the Security Council that recommended her not to do so.
I know that the stock answer to this is that the Government made a reservation that this was to apply only to arms that might be used for repression, and not to arms for defence. I know very well that it is not uncommon in the United Nations, as in other bodies, in general to assent to a proposition but to make certain reservations of detail. Reservations of detail—yes; but what the Government claim to have done in this case was to say, "We accept this resolution on the assumption that it does not mean what it says and on the assumption that it does not mean what everybody else believes it to mean." That is stretching the process of reservation too far.
To what extent can one stand on the technical question of the difference between arms that could be used for repression and arms for external naval defence? If we want the answer on such a technical defence question who better could be go to then, again, the noble Lord, the Minister of Defence, who


said some time ago when this issue was first raised in 1963:
The Government cannot guarantee that no weapons could ever in any circumstances be used for this purpose. Even naval weapons could at a pinch be used to bombard a land target.
The Minister of Defence in this Government does not believe that this distinction can be maintained. Of course, remembering what happened to Ministers of Defence in former Tory Governments, we do not know what proportion of the limited time allotted to this Government may remain to him. But if he will go on making candid and plain statements of this kind we wish him—within the total span allotted by the fates to the Tory Government—as long a tenure of office as possible.
But there is another piece of advice about the technicalities. In the debate that we had on the matter, in December, 1967, the present Prime Minister expressed as his view that among the arms that we could properly sell to South Africa would be Shackletons, Nimrods and Buccaneers. Is he still of that view? Are the Government as a whole still of that view? Are they prepared to say that none of these instruments of war could be used for the purpose of internal repression? If they are, they will find very few people informed on defence matters who are prepared to agree with them.
It was in the light of this that the Labour Government decided in 1964 and confirmed in 1967 that they would act in accordance with the Security Council resolution. I accept at once that in accordance with the usual practice it was understood that commitments that we had already entered into—and specifically those under the Simonstown Agreement, to which I shall refer later—would be completed and that those would involve, on a limited scale, certain replacements. Those have already been completed, and that procsss is now at an end. So it is not open to the Government to say that the last Government, after their decision in 1964, continued to supply certain arms to South Africa, because that was done in pursuance of agreements made before the Security Council resolution, and no more. Also, every such delivery was public knowledge and was already in the discussion when we debated this matter in December, 1967.
In the exchanges and Questions that we have had on this matter, some hon. Members have argued that the previous Government's position was not logical, the Security Council resolution was not logical, and that if we refuse to sell arms to South Africa, why do we have the Simonstown Agreement at all, and if we refuse to sell arms to South Africa, why do we engage in peaceful trade? But surely we have to pay attention, first, to the importance of the rule of law in international affairs. Law, whether national or international, is not always 100 per cent. in line with logic. If a man in this country is convicted of ill-treating a dog, we do not allow him to escape the penalty by pleading that the law is illogical since it still permits cruelty to hares and foxes.
We take the view, quite rightly, that at any given moment, because of conflicting currents of opinion, the law may be illogical; that in time we are going to make it more just and logical, but in the meantime it is right to hold on to and enforce what law we have. If we take that view, as we rightly do, on domestic law, still more important is it to take that view on the more fragile plant of the body of international law that grows up out of the United Nations. To say that because decisions taken at any particular moment can be attacked as incomplete or illogical they can be set aside is to destroy any hope of asserting the rule of law in international affairs.
The first point that I want to make on this whole question is that the Government's action calls in question their whole respect for the rule of law and for the United Nations.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Do the Opposition accept the ruling of the International Court of Justice about South-West Africa?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, we do. But we do not draw the conclusions from it that some hon. Members were trying to draw—I believe mistakenly—the other day. In the course of the debate some hon. Members will wish to raise the question of South-West Africa, but I must point out that we are concerned here with the sale of arms, which does not arise in the case of South-West Africa. We are concerned here with a Security Council


resolution to which this country assented, and there is no getting away from that.
The Government's major excuse for their uncertainty—because they still will not tell us exactly what their policy is, though they may do so before the end of today—has been to plead the Simonstown Agreement. In almost every approach to the problem they have begun by talking about that Agreement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), if he is able towards the end of the debate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, will develop more fully the defence aspects, but meanwhile I would make two points.
The first point is that the Simonstown Agreement commits this country to certain specific sales of arms to South Africa which were completed long ago. There is no further commitment of any kind on this country to sell arms to South Africa arising from the Simonstown Agreement. It is noteworthy that when the Labour Government took their decision in 1964, and again in 1967, when there were discussions with South Africa on certain modifications of the Agreement, on neither occasion was it contended by the South African Government that our decision was a breach of the Simonstown Agreement. Only very recently have they suggested that it was, as they put it, a breach of the spirit of the Agreement. The Agreement is a public document: anyone can read it. It is quite clear that we are not committed, beyond what has already been completed, to any sale of arms to South Africa by virtue of the Simonstown Agreement. That argument is not open to the Government.
The other, rather broader, argument the Government use is that the Simonstown Agreement, and an implied sale of arms to South Africa, is necessary for the national interests of this country in view of increasing Soviet naval presence. As I say, my right hon. Friend has something further to say on defence matters. At the moment, I will simply say that if the object of the Government's policy is either to contain or to rival Soviet naval presence in the southern hemisphere that will involve a gigantic effort in money and manpower which will be totally inconsistent with everything they have said about reduction of public expenditure. And the proposal

for, apparently—and it must be if they are to keep their word—a very limited sale of arms to South Africa, is a triviality in the face of the problem of Soviet naval presence in the southern hemisphere. It cannot be maintained that the two have any relevance, the one to the other.
This further thing I should say on the Simonstown Agreement. We are told—and, again, we are left without any clear information from the Government—that the South African Government are seeking renegotiation of the Agreement, and some people surmise that what they are seeking is a form of agreement that would bind this country permanently, whatever a future Parliament or Government might think, to the sale of arms to South Africa. If there is any truth in those reports, I had better make one thing quite clear. Under our Constitution, one Parliament cannot bind its successor. Any agreement entered into by this Government to sell arms to South Africa in contravention of the United Nations resolution would be an agreement that they made knowing that they did so with the entire dissent of the Opposition, and if they tried to misrepresent that fact to the South African Government they would be deceiving that Government.
Since the real defence importance of the very limited arms which, on their own definition, they could sell to South Africa is so small, what is the real issue? Why is it that the Government and the South African Government have shown the eagerness for this? The amount, of its nature, cannot make a major contribution to the defence either of this country or of South Africa. I feel that the real issue is that the South African Government want to see the Government of the United Kingdom politically committed to the policy of South Africa. This is what the South African Government want, and what right hon. Gentlemen opposite certainly want is a quiet time from some of their more ferocious back benchers. Will it be worth their defying the United Nations, setting aside the international rule of law, estranging us from so many countries, for something the defence aspect of which is trivial?
Some other arguments have been thrown into the scale. When the Labour Government took their decision we were


told, "This will destroy our hope of peaceful trade with South Africa." This argument was repeated again and again, undeterred by the fact that no solid evidence could ever be produced in its favour. But if the Government are saying to themselves that one reason for selling arms to South Africa is that it will be good for our general trading position they should notice that for every £5 million of exports from this country to South Africa, £7 million of exports goes to the rest of Africa. If the Government are to be so restrictive and careful about what arms they will sell to South Africa, the trading advantage will be precious little, and for this they will have endangered the possibility of trade throughout the Commonwealth and beyond, and will have endangered not only trade but good will.
Let us, in this connection, look at another of those subjects about which the Prime Minister is so unwilling to inform us, though we can all collect it from other sources—the reactions of Commonwealth countries. If any comments that I make about the reactions of Commonwealth countries are, to the Government's certain knowledge, untrue, I hope that they will say so in the debate, but this is what I believe to be the case.
Tanzania has made it quite clear that if the Government proceed in their intention she will leave the Commonwealth. I assume that Tanzania, like the rest of us, is now studying Monday's statement and trying to make up her mind what the Government's policy actually is. I hope, therefore, that Tanzania will be willing to hold her hand and use all her powers of persuasion to push this Government—which seems, to use Dr. Johnson's phrase, to be "wiggle-waggle" on the issue—over to the right side. But we know, at any rate, that if the Government come down on the wrong side, Tanzania has told them that she will leave the Commonwealth.
Zambia has spoken of retaliation. Kenya has said that she would be prepared to take the lead in the organisation of Commonwealth opinion against the British Government's policy. India's comment has been hostile. And if the Government are concerned about naval

problems in the southern hemisphere, they had better think of what India's attitude to their whole policy is.
Will the Government deny also—lest anyone should think that the answers I have quoted so far might be moved by racial prejudice—that Canada's reply has been equally hostile; and that probably the amount of support in the Commonwealth and in the world that the Government have for this policy is about what they had for Suez? And it is not only the Commonwealth. I do not think the Government can deny that the United States regard this as a very ill-advised move, and that the great majority of our N.A.T.O. partners take the same view.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told us that the South Atlantic is not in the N.A.T.O. area. We are aware of that, but surely the vital defence of this country is bound up with the efficiency of N.A.T.O. and the degree of trust which the members of N.A.T.O. have for each other? We must ask again: is it worthwhile for what, on the Government's own showing, can only be a slender supply of arms to South Africa to engage in a policy which not only creates bitter resentment throughout the Commonwealth, but is distrusted and disliked by nearly all our allies as well?

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): France, Germany and Italy have all sold arms.

Mr. Stewart: What I am hoping the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me is whether my estimate of the attitude of the Commonwealth and the N.A.T.O. countries in the main to this action by us is right or not. I do not think it can be denied.
I have stressed in what I have been saying recently on trade, on defence, and on our standing in the Commonwealth and the world the immediate arguments concerned with the immediate interests of this country. I have done that because that is the ground which the Government themselves chose. They said, "We are going to look after British interests", but I think it is clear that even on the narrowest and most short-term definition that is exactly what they are not doing.
But there is something much greater than that at stake. There are great


world questions with which are bound up not shorter term interests of defence, trade and immediate calculations, but the long-term vital interests of this country of being on the right side on one of the greatest questions now rending the world apart. When I spoke on foreign affairs during the debate on the Queen's Speech I suggested that there were three great things in foreign policy to which attention was given. The first was conciliation between East and West, which lies outside the scope of our present debate. The second was reconciliation between the white and coloured sections of mankind. The third was the importance of building up rather than discouraging the authority of the United Nations. The debate today is concerned with those two last questions, and on both of them the Government are making the wrong decision.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that any of those objectives were furthered by the building in South Africa under licence of Aermacchi MB 326s for the whole of the period of the Labour Administration? I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that they were powered by British engines, albeit manufactured under licence. This aircraft is an ideal counter-insurgency or "repression" aircraft.

Mr. Stewart: What the hon. Gentleman has not grasped—I do not think he has been following the argument at all—is that we are concerned with the attitude of Great Britain towards a Security Council resolution and towards the avowed policy of the Government of resuming the sale of arms to South Africa. I am saying that to do those two things endangers our long-term interests and our whole standing in the world, and does it for such pathetically little reward. No one can seriously say that our defence against any possible Soviet threat is seriously improved by what it is proposed to do, even if the Government know exactly what it is they propose to do. Nobody can say, in the light of the trading balances between us and South Africa, and us and black Africa, that there is any reward in trade.
I know—any Foreign Secretary must know—that the Government can sometimes face an extremely difficult question

where the great long-term moral and political considerations point one way and pressing and grave immediate considerations of national interest point the other, and if the Government are ever in that position they deserve sympathy, but with this Government, and on this issue, all the considerations point in the same direction—our immediate interests, our long-term interests, and the great world moral question.
The Government are spoiling their record in the world for no return. There is an old medieval proverb that the devil is an ass, and the devil is a cheat. If one follows his counsel the reward for doing so is paid in cheques which will be dishonoured, and his worldly wisdom will turn out to be the most asinine folly. That is the course on which the Government, however timidly, are trying to embark. We urge them to abandon it before it is too late.

5.6 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): As the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, we have been deprived of about one hour of our debate, and therefore I shall try to respond to his speech as succinctly as I can.
I do not propose to refer to the letter in today's newspaper which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, and only for one reason. Whether that letter is authentic or not is of no account. Once there is this kind of suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman that official letters should be quoted, that official messages from every Prime Minister should be quoted, there is no basis for Commonwealth relations, or, indeed, international relations. Such letters must be exchanged in trust and good faith.
I intend to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in two parts. First, the constitutional and all the Parliamentary aspects of the matter, with which we were concerned at Question Time on Monday. Second, the substance of the Government's case, and the support 0' the Government's case, and the intention which we have expressed ever since 1955 when the Simonstown Agreement was signed that arms should be sold to South Africa in a particular context.
We have not taken a decision on this finally, but it is useless for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we have taken a decision in a hurry. We operated this policy from 1955 to 1964. Every year in Opposition we confirmed it, and so this intention has been plain to both sides of the House for many years. The intention to consider the sale of certain limited categories of arms has also been understood. Having dealt with those subjects, I shall then turn, if I may, to consider the policy in relation to the United Nations, in relation to the Commonwealth, and in relation to the strategic interests of Britain.
This Government—any Government—must be free to take decisions at the time of their own choosing and announce decisions at any time that seems to be appropriate. This Government—and any Government—could never agree to be fettered in their right to act at any time of their own choosing. They can be fettered in that respect only by Parliament. In this case of the intention to take a decision—a decision not yet finally taken—about supplying arms to South Africa, I told the House that no decision would be implemented and no Government action taken, such as licensing an arms deal, before a further statement was made to the House. I hope that that is, quite clear.
That is a proper course because we are indulging in and are engaged in discussion and consultation. The weeks ahead will enable the Government to ascertain what clarifications in the Simonstown Agreement are required by the South African Government and to continue and to complete our discussions within the Commonwealth. Many Commonwealth countries want further information about what the British Government's intention may be.

Mr. John Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point which was not dealt with on Monday? Would salesmen go from this country to South Africa with the blessing of the Minister of Defence before a decision was announced to the House, and would any long-lead items be ordered before the House was told?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No one could possibly say what private individuals

might do. What I am saying is that no Government action will be taken before a statement is made to the House.
It is perhaps as well, after the speech of the right hon. Member for Fulham, to remind ourselves of the arms policy of all British Governments, which was more actively pursued by the last Government than any other because they appointed an arms salesman. The policy of all Governments is to sell arms to any country unless that country is a declared enemy and, if need be, to attach limitations to the nature of the weapons to be sold. This has been done in relation to a number of other countries. The policy has lately been applied in, for example, Libya, Israel and Nigeria. In the case of the possible sale of arms to South Africa the definition would be of such a nature that those arms could not be used to promote apartheid and would be, within the bounds of maritime defence, related to the free passage of the sea routes.

Mr. Denis Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to certain negotiations carried out with other Governments in the past. He will no doubt be aware that in one of those cases Her Majesty's Government planned to make it a condition of sale that the country which was to buy the weapons should give a formal undertaking that it would not use them for purposes of which Her Majesty's Government did not approve. Would it be her Majesty's Government's intention to seek such an undertaking from the South African Government, because without such an undertaking, as the Minister of Defence has stated, there can be no guarantee whatever that even maritime weapons will not be used for internal security?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is perfectly possible in a negotiation, in a discussion, with the South African Government. All that I was doing was giving the general arms policy of all Governments, and all Governments make conditions. In another case the condition was made that the weapons should not be used in the event of internal strife. This is a condition which could possibly be applied—

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait for the final decision to be announced. If we are able to come to a final decision and agreement with South Africa, I will tell him the answer.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is covering some of the ground we covered on Monday. He talks about a final decision being announced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) made clear, Mr. Vorster was reported yesterday as having said that Her Majesty's Government have intimated to him privately but officially that the Government are going to resume arms sales to South Africa and that he intends to hold them to that pledge. Was he speaking the truth or lying?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Vorster has understood, as indeed everybody else in this country has understood except possibly the right hon. Gentleman, that it was the intention, and has been the intention all the time, of the Conservative Party, if returned to office, to honour the Simonstown Agreement and to consider the sale of certain categories of arms.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The House will do well to accord to the Foreign Secretary the same hearing that it accorded to the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I wish naturally to deal with the substance of the issue. If the Leader of the Opposition will keep quiet, I shall later comment on some of the things which he has said in the past. I will give way at that point if he wishes me to do so, but I hope that he will allow me to continue with the speech that I intend to make.
In recent years I have often found myself in direct conflict with the Leader of the Opposition on important matters of military strategy. I shall remind him of two matters which are pertinent to the argument on which we are engaged today.
The first was in relation to Britain's possession and control of the nuclear

weapons in our independent deterrent. He described them—our Polaris submarine and our strike aircraft—as a pea on the top of a mountain. He said that Britain should get rid of it and that we should shed control of it. [Interruption.] If right hon. and hon. Members opposite listen, they will hear why I am entitled to remind the Leader of the Opposition of this matter. On a very important strategic matter the right hon. Gentleman's judgment was, by his own confession, wrong, and it will be the more wrong if Europe is called upon to provide more of her own defence.
The second occasion was Aden—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: What about Munich. Let us talk about Munich.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will behave in a parliamentary manner. Whatever they may think about the views of the Government, there is a proper way to behave, and I look to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) to lead the way.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Is it in order for the Foreign Secretary to deal so extensively with the question of nuclear arms? Is he intimating that nuclear arms are also on the South African Government's shopping list?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Foreign Secretary is entitled to make his speech in the way in which he thinks fit and the proper thing for the House to do is to listen to him.

Mr. Healey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Foreign Secretary quoted this example because he wanted us to consider his record on Suez and Munich?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a point of order."] Mr. Deputy Speaker will decide whether it is a point of order.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have called the right hon. Gentleman on a point of order. I hope that the House will listen to him.

Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will reconsider what you said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) if so early in this Parliament you want to win the confidence of the House. Secondly, and this is a point of order—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is a change."]—you will no doubt have read the Motion on the Order Paper. It has been made quite clear by the Foreign Secretary—about the only thing he has made clear—that what the Government propose—I shall respond later to the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to repeat my question to him. It has been made clear that the Government's intention is very limited and does not include nuclear arms. Will you kindly rule whether, in the terms of the Motion we are debating, the Foreign Secretary is in order in talking about nuclear potentialities in Europe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are in order only as long as we stay on the terms of the Motion. We must stay on the terms of the Motion. But I always deprecate any idea of raising points of order which are known by right hon. and hon. Members who know the rules of the House very well strictly speaking not to be points of order. I considered that what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said was not strictly a point of order. If I did the right hon. Gentleman an injustice—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did."]—I am sorry for that. I stand by my Ruling. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the Opposition will allow me to deploy my argument it is perfectly proper to say—and this is my firm belief—that in a matter of the first strategic importance the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition was wrong. I shall suggest that he has carried this a great deal further.
The second matter on which I have often differed with him is that he evacuated Aden. It was clear to us, and has been clear to me for a number of years, that there are two areas in which the balance of power can be changed to the detriment of the West, and indeed

of all free countries. One is the Middle East and the other is the Gulf. In relation to the latter, Aden was the key point of first strategic importance. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends got out and the Russians are going to move in. In the foreseeable future—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would consider this matter they would see that it has a serious military future.
In the foreseeable future the balance of power is not likely to change very much either in respect of nuclear armoury or on the ground in Europe. So long as the political will of N.A.T.O. holds, we shall be secure so far as a land attack is concerned, but where the balance is changing—and hon. Members must face this—is at sea. There is a case for saying that it has changed to the detriment of the West very much in the last few years. I will repeat the figures I gave to the House a fortnight ago. The Soviet submarine fleet now numbers 373. The submarine fleets of the N.A.T.O. allies, France, ourselves and the United States, number 200. The Soviet fleet is the most modern fleet now and it is having eight modern submarines added to this number every year. Britain's security, therefore—this is why with great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I said right hon. Gentlemen did not at first understand the argument I was using—[An HON. MEMBER: "They still do not"] The hon. Member will in a moment. Britain's security depends just as much on maritime defence as on the defence of the frontiers of the N.A.T.O. allies. There is no doubt—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no doubt at all that the Soviet Union has two particular strategic targets. It wishes to exercise a dominating influence in the Middle East and in the Gulf, as Mr. George Brown pointed out to us from these benches so graphically only a few years ago. The Soviet Union wants to penetrate in strength and deeply into the Indian Ocean. Both the Communist countries, the Soviet Union and China, are operating in the Middle East, in the Gulf and in Somalia and, as I believe everyone knows, the Chinese are supplying the total armament now of Tanzania.


The Soviet Union and the Chinese are penetrating right through this area and it is the intention unquestionably of the Soviet Union to penetrate the Indian Ocean. The truth is this—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Hon Members must recognise the truth of this. Where Britain and the Allies have stepped out in these vital strategic areas one or other of the Communist countries has stepped in. I should not like us to be an East African country, for example, if the Indian Ocean became a completely Communist-dominated sea. Nor is there any dispute, I take it, that through the Indian Ocean runs the trade route which in the most accurate sense of the word, is vital to Britain and Western Europe. That route carries a quarter of our trade and carries a third of Europe's Oil.
What puzzles me, and I hope the right hon. Member for Leeds, East will say something about this when he speaks later this evening, is that when the Russians appeared in greater strength in the Mediterranean the right hon. Gentleman used to come to the House and tell us with pride that he had strengthened the conventional forces of N.A.T.O. by adding British naval units. For the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Pacific, the contingency plans are there. The conventional naval forces are deployed against any interference with British or allied shipping.
Therefore the right hon. Member for Leeds, East has to answer this question. If conventional naval dispositions are to be questioned in one part of the oceans, and that one of the most vital of all, why not question them in all? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come to this. He has said that the routes around Africa might be at some time a N.A.T.O. concern, but, today they are not. I have often thought that this route is so important to the rest of Europe that it ought at some future date to be N.A.T.O.'s concern, but it is not now.
For the present, unless N.A.T.O. changes its policy there is only one way in which the sea routes in that area can be adequately policed and that is by the British and the South African navies together—not by the British alone, not by

the South Africans alone, but by the two navies together. This was recognised explicitly by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when he said on 14th February, 1968:
… Her Majesty's Government and the South African Government share responsibilities for maritime security in the South African area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1316.]
Presumably the "share" has a meaning, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain that meaning later. The Under-Secretary of State said this on 8th February, 1967:
… the Chief of the South African Navy will take greater responsibility for the South African area in times of war"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1968; Vol. 740, c. 1619.]
under the British Admiral who is Commander-in-Chief of the Western Fleet. And that was the act of the right hon. Gentleman.
So the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, will exercise with the South African fleet; he will advocate an integrated command with the South African fleet; he will do all the contingency planning against the war, but only if the ships supplied to South Africa are supplied by countries other than Britain.
I return to the serious military question: when conventional naval weapons are said to be necessary and are deployed in every sea except this, why in this context is there to be no naval deployment at all, because the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the British Navy cannot do this by itself? It is possible only if it shares it, in his own words, with the South African Navy.
The other day the right hon. Gentleman said something which again needs examination. He suggested that the Russians might sink a tanker and that in that case the N.A.T.O. Alliance would operate. Things do not happen necessarily at sea in this way. This is not the way trouble begins. I remind him of the Cuba experience. There the Soviet Union suffered the most humiliating experience. It came into an area where there was a dominant Power and it had to retreat. I remind him of the Pueblo incident, of the number of cases in which ships have been restrained at sea. It is against that kind of thing that one has to guard.
It should not be forgotten that if the Soviet Union were to be in command in effect and to have a base at Aden and


were to convert its new fishing fleet services in Mauritius into a naval base, it could dominate the Indian Ocean and it could be that no other naval forces could effectively be there. Then British and African interests could indeed be very seriously affected. Already Australia is worried about the policing of the Indian Ocean and thinking about moving her Navy to the Cockburn Sound and offering facilities to others. Already Singapore and Malaysia are worried. Some day perhaps in the future some African country will have the strength to contribute to the defence of this area and the defence of these sea routes, but not yet.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No. The right hon. Member will later have a completely clear run. I must complete my speech. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may not like this argument, but it is a serious argument. They must recognise it as such. Now the only military protection that can be given is Britain operating from Simonstown, plus the South African Navy equipped for naval patrol. It is possible to ensure that the sales to South Africa would be confined to the equipment necessary for naval patrolling.
I come now to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which dealt with the morality of the matter.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The Secretary of State graciously said that he would give way to me when he had deployed the two points where he thought my argument was fallacious. We have been considering the deterrent in Europe, Aden, the North Sea, and the lot. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question I put to him and which he felt unable to answer before?
Remembering his right hon. Friend's promises in the Tory manifesto to deal directly with Parliament, the Press and the public, I now invite him to do it. Will he now answer this question which I put to him before? He will have read in yesterday's Daily Mail—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman should not show his distaste for the paper which has helped him so much. He will have read a report yesterday attributed directly to Dr. Vorster who said that Her Majesty's Government had given him an

assurance, privately but officially, that they had decided to supply arms to South Africa and that he intended to hold Her Majesty's Government to that phrase. Since the right hon. Genteman on Monday and today—[Interruption.]—I know hon. Gentlemen do not like this. The right hon. Gentleman could have answered the question the first time. I must now tell him why he must answer the question.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedford-fordshire): On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his seat unless right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) gives way.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were reminded several times by Mr. Speaker that a great deal of time has been wasted already in this debate. Many of us want to hear an important speech from the Foreign Secretary. Do we have to put up with this sort of thing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Foreign Secretary gives way to the right hon. Gentleman, then I am afraid that the House has to listen.

Mr. Wilson: After that further waste of time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all of which could have been avoided if we had had a straight answer the first time I put the question, I will now repeat the question.
Since Dr. Vorster was reported as saying that Her Majesty's Government have given him an undertaking, privately but officially, to which he held them, about supplying arms to South Africa, since a decision has been taken, and since we were told on Monday and again today that no decision has been taken, will the Foreign Secretary say whether Dr. Vorster is telling the truth or lying, or whether he is misleading the House?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, I will certainly answer, but I do not intend to be lectured by the Leader of the Opposition and least of all about straight answering. Now I will answer his question. Dr. Vorster has known of our intention—[Interruption.] If the House wants


to hear the answer, I must have a chance to give it. Dr. Vorster has known about our intention to sell arms to South Africa. He has known as well that there has been no final decision. That is the straight answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Faulds: So Vorster is lying is he?

Mr. M. Stewart: That is not quite the point. The point is that Mr. Vorster has made quite clear that he believes that the Government have committed themselves to sell arms to him and that it is not a question still awaiting consultation. That, evidently, is what Mr. Vorster believes. Is he right or not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have told Mr. Vorster, just as we have told everybody else—and we have told him for years past—that it is our intention to sell arms under the Simonstown Agreement; but we have taken no final decision about that. That is the answer.
I come now to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dealt with the morality of the matter, a question to which the House should give its attention. On what, in relation to South Africa, do both sides of the House agree? We agree that it is abhorrent to build a society on colour discrimination. We agree, however, that force cannot be used to change the policies of apartheid. Both parties reject an embargo on trade. In fact, under the last Government our trade with South Africa increased very largely. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must face this. There are £1,000 million investments by this country in South Africa, and there is £300 million of trade each way.
The question I put to right hon. Gentlemen opposite is this. Do they think that that does not strengthen South Africa? Of course increasing trade with South Africa strengthens South Africa. One of the arguments against the sale of arms to South Africa is that it strengthens the South African nation, giving them more power against their neighbours. But all the time this has been happening through increased trade, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite have welcomed it. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman went further than any Conservative Government in this direction. He authorised

the Atomic Energy Authority to place a plant in South-West Africa for the manufacture of uranium. Did he tell the United Nations? Did he tell his back benchers that he had put in a uranium plant? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] When one of his hon. Friends on the back benches raised this question yesterday and asked whether it was not very immoral to place that plant in South-West Africa, when I replied that it had been done by the authority of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the right hon. Gentleman sat down as though he had been pricked by a pin.
I have in the past day or two sometimes misnamed the Leader of the Opposition. I shall not do it now. I shall say that in this respect, when the Leader of the Opposition puts on a white sheet and says that South Africa is untouchable, he is the prime humbug of all time. In the wake of the General Election, his hon. Friends on the back benches might like to know the original definition of a humbug. It is in pincer—[Interruption.]—I am sure that they will wish to hear what the original definition was. [Interruption.] I shall wait a bit and then give it. They will be interested, I am sure. The original definition of a humbug is
a pincer used to lead cattle by the nose to the slaughterhouse".
I come to the question of the United Nations and of the Commonwealth. As regards the United Nations, to supply such arms to South Africa as those proposed to be sold is not a breach of the Security Council resolutions. Those resolutions were not mandatory. They were recommendations, and at the time a specific reservation was made by our permanent representative at the United Nations on behalf of the British Government that we should feel free to provide arms for the external defence of South Africa, something allowed under the Charter. The present definition is intended to be slightly narrower than that.
As regards the Commonwealth, I hope that the right hon. Member for Fulham at least will exercise his influence in this direction: I hope that Commonwealth countries will realise that, when there is a dispute or a difference of opinion between one Commonwealth member and another, one partner and another, or even some members of the Commonwealth and


one other, it is not the answer to break the Commonwealth.
There was deep anxiety when Pakistan and India went to war. Nobody broke the Commonwealth. The Pakistanis made an agreement with China which almost everyone disliked. Nobody broke the Commonwealth. Tanzania, as we have said, consulted nobody and took her own defence decisions. I do not complain of that for one moment, but no Commonwealth country was consulted. No Commonwealth country was told in advance when Mauritius concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union for facilities for her fishing fleet. All these happenings were of concern to other members of the Commonwealth, but the answer was not to break up the Commonwealth.
Britain values the Commonwealth association, but we must ask that we be treated as an equal member and equal partner having the same right to judge in our own cause as any other member of this association. Otherwise, a double standard will operate, and a double standard operating in that respect would break the Commonwealth wide open.
In this matter of arms in relation to the Simonstown Agreement, we have taken into account, and will take into account, some of the genuine fears of the Commonwealth countries. But the decision, at the end of the day, must be a decision of the British Government, and nobody else can make it for us.
I understand very well the philosophy of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). He would boycott, and a number of his hon. Friends would boycott. They would apply sanctions against South Africa. They would not co-operate with any South African Government unless it reformed its ways. They would certainly not, for example, have put a uranium plant in South-West Africa. I can recognise that.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman has made two references to uranium, may I put the record straight? Uranium is not manufactured. Uranium is mined. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Atomic Energy Authority is not putting up a plant in South-West Africa. The Atomic Energy Authority signed a contract with

Rio Tinto Zinc, an international company which supplies uranium, and has for many years, from both Canada and South Africa. It has absolutely no bearing on the issue we are discussing.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not need the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that uranium is mined. But after that it is manufactured, and eventually gets into—but we need not pursue that.

Mr. John Mendelson: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the views that some of us hold, would he answer this topical question? A resolution has been introduced in the United Nations this morning calling upon all the members, particularly the members of the Security Council, the major Powers, not to supply arms to South Africa. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to instruct the British delegate to vote for the resolution and then still feel free to supply arms to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman knows that the resolution is not yet in final form.

Mr. Mendelson: Dear, dear.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: These things take a considerable number of days to put into final form. It is at present in the context of a breach of the peace, and a number of countries are working to get the wording as they wish it.

Mr. Faulds: Honest Government.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have tried to answer the hon. Gentleman, but no doubt he cannot hear the answer. I am saying that the resolution is in nothing like final form. A number of countries are trying to put it into its final shape. I do not know what the final shape will be, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether we shall vote against it, veto it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or abstain. It is impossible to say.
I can recognise very well the position of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and others who take the line that the boycott is right, that to apply sanctions against South Africa is right, and that not to co-operate with South Africa is right. I can recognise that as a moral stance, and indeed I think that I can recognise boycott as perhaps a Christian attitude.


It is possible to say that something is so evil that you will have nothing to do with it. I can recognise that.
If force is ruled out, however—and war will not solve the problem of apartheid—there is another and I suggest just as moral and just as Christian way—

Mr. M. Stewart: Sell them arms.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: —by contact, to convince by example. There is strong evidence to show that the trouble with South Africa is because South Africa is so isolated from every other country in the world, and the greater the isolation the more stubborn her doctrine of apartheid becomes. It is not without interest that it is under the impact of modern industrial organisation that the rigid rules of apartheid are found impossible to sustain.
I therefore uphold the proposition on moral grounds that South Africa should not be ostracised and put in Coventry but that her territory should be opened up to the civilising influences of the outside world. It is one or the other—[Interruption.]—the Leader of the Opposition continues to mutter.

Mr. Harold Wilson: rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a serious argument between two moral propositions. It will come to a choice. It will be one or the other. It will either end by boycott, sanctions and probably inevitably by war, or it will end by contact, by example and reconciliation between the white populations of Africa have ruled successfully ever since.
I find, therefore, the policy of the boycotters credible but wrong, but I see nothing to be said for the pretence of the Socialist Front Bench as they have conducted their policy with South Africa during the past six years. I will not be lectured by the right hon. Gentleman about colour. I remind him of the first two contacts I had with right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Socialist Party on colour.

Hon. Members: D'Oliveira.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: They had kept Seretse Khama exiled in Brighton for years, and that continued to be his only prospect. By some hideous kind of inverted colour snobbery, they thought

that he could not go back to rule his country because he had a white wife. As Commonwealth Secretary I sent them both back to Bechuanaland, where they have ruled successfully ever since.
The next occasion was when the Federation of Southern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia looked like breaking up. I begged right hon. Gentlemen opposite to take an all-Party approach to the problem in the Monckton Commission. Mr. Gaitskell could not do so because there was considerable opposition from the Left wing of his party. Many Africans served on the Commission. If the Socialists had served on an all-party Commission at that time we would probably not have had the Rhodesian problem that we now face.
I hope that the British Government and British people can help the process of reconciliation between Europeans and Africans. Because I find the policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite over the past six years quite incredible, because they mismanaged the problems that faced them in South Africa, and because during those years they were ready to co-operate and to go a very long way with the South African Government, but not to say so, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate this evening he will advise the House to reject the Motion.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. As the Member for Edinburgh, East, I succeed George Willis, who represented my constituency for 13 years. He played an important rôle in the House, and he will be well remembered by many right hon. and hon. Members. Before representing Edinburgh, East, he represented Edinburgh, North for five years. He also played an important rôle in Government, and he will be remembered as Minister of State, Scottish Office, for his contribution to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and his work in creating the Countryside Commission. He will also be remembered for the great work he did in his constituency. As someone who has lived in the constituency for a number of years, I take pleasure in putting that on record.
It is traditional in a maiden speech to refer at length to the problems of one's constituency, but because of the importance of this debate I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to do so. The problems of my constituency are important, but I shall raise them later.
However, there is one reference to it which I should like to make. Last Thursday, I went to my constituency to watch the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games. One could not ask for a more poignant illustration of what the Commonwealth means. No one who believes in multi-racialism could fail to be impressed by all the athletes from 41 different countries parading before the stands and by the tremendous spirit of friendliness which pervaded the whole arena.
I was very conscious of the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland was present, and I could not but also be conscious of the fact that at that very time we were watching this magnificent display the Government were taking part in discussions which might well lead to the complete break-up of the Commonwealth. That is one of the crucial issues. It is indicative of the Foreign Secretary's record on Commonwealth affairs that he spent only five minutes referring to Commonwealth countries and most of that time lecturing them on past failings. Why did he not say anything about the great concern felt by countries such as Zambia and Tanzania?
All hon. Members are agreed that the central objective of all politicians is the creation of a world where all people will live together in peace, where there are no weapons of mass destruction, where the differences between nations and groups of nations are settled amicably in an organisation such as the United Nations, where there is no colonialism or other major form of exploitation, where the different races have mutual respect and where all races regard each other as of equal value.
The Government's decision to sell arms to South Africa will be a blow to the United Nations. It will encourage the exploitation of cheap black labour by the owners of South African capital. It will be a victory for racialism. There is now a possibility that in the years ahead we shall see a major confrontation between the rich white countries and the

poorer coloured countries. Britain has a crucial role to play in avoiding this confrontation, a crucial rôle because of our history, because of our proud record in giving colonial countries their freedom and creating the Commonwealth.
If we are to play that crucial rôle, we must be absolutely resolute in our opposition to racialism, and that does not mean just opposing racial discrimination in places such as Smethwick and Wolverhampton. It means being unequivocal in our opposition to apartheid in South Africa. We cannot be neutral in this issue. We must align ourselves with those countries which are opposed to the racialist policies of South Africa. All the ingredients are in South Africa for a major and bloody conflagration.
I should like to refer to the reaction of Commonwealth African countries. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, Tanzania appears to have indicated that it will immediately leave the Commonwealth if we start to sell arms to South Africa. Kenya's Foreign Minister has spoken about Britain presiding over the dissolution of the Commonwealth, and Zambia, for which this is the most serious problem, has spoken of how she may retaliate economically against Britain. Zambia has not forgotten that Mr. Vorster has gone on record as saying that the South Africans may hit Zambia so hard that she will never forget it—that was said in 1967. The Government must not claim to be surprised by the reaction of Commonwealth African countries. It was made plain last year by the Deputy Secretary General of the organisation for African Unity. Patrick Keatley reported in The Guardian of 30th October, 1969 that the Assistant Secretary-General of the O.A.U. said:
Any decision by a future Conservative administration in Britain to go back on the U.N. Security Council resolution—a measure that has been rigidly observed by Canada and the U.S.—is something so serious that it would inevitably invite action of some kind by the independent governments of Africa.
It would be political folly to suppose that the government of the day in Britain could inflict such a grave blow against black Africa and the U.N. without there being some resultant reaction from governments whose interests would be so directly affected. The 41 member states of the O.A.U. would certainly confer immediately such a thing happened, and would have to consider at summit level what action to take.


There can be no question but that the Government know full well what they are doing and what are the implications for the Commonwealth.
There is a saying that a country gets the government it deserves. God forbid that this country should deserve this Government! God forbid that this country should deserve a Government which is to align itself with racialist South Africa. But if the country does deserve this Government, this country no longer deserves to belong to the Commonwealth.
Not only must the Government be fully aware of the Commonwealth's reaction or likely reaction to this proposal, but they must be completely aware of the overriding objectives of South Africa's defence strategy. As long ago as 1963 the then South African Defence Minister said:
The first task of the defence forces is to help the police maintain law and order".
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself said on his return from his recent visit to South Africa that South Africa was obsessed with the racial issue. Of course it is. Its whole defence strategy is concerned with the race issue, with the preservation of apartheid.
Why does South Africa want arms from Britain? I very much doubt if South Africa is all that anxious to buy particular arms from us. We do not have a record that can guarantee continuity of supply. It is conceivable that a Labour Government in a few years' time would reverse any action in this matter. It is even conceivable that the next Labour Government might refuse to supply spares. I do not think South Africa cares whether she buys arms from Britain or from France. Indeed, there are very good reasons why she might prefer to buy them from France.
South Africa is concerned about its isolation, an isolation that is a consequence of its apartheid policies, an isolation which it deserves. South Africa wants to be an ally of Britain in the Western defence system. South Africa wants respectability. It was this respect to which Mr. Botha, the South African Defence Minister, was referring earlier this month when he said:
The Simonstown Agreement can only be of real practical value if it is carried out in a spirit of mutual co-operation between

self-respecting countries in the interests of the whole free world.
The Foreign Secretary is on record as having said in South Africa that he wanted to discuss with the South African leaders his plan to put the defence of the vital Cape sea route under the protective wing of N.A.T.O. In view of that statement, I was surprised by his reaction on Monday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that the N.A.T.O. writ did not run in this area. He refused to discuss whether or not he had consulted N.A.T.O. Allies. Perhaps he would tell the House whether he has given up his plans for involving South Africa in N.A.T.O. If he has, is it because Mr. Vorster does not like the idea, or because our N.A.T.O. Allies would not have anything to do with it?
South Africa resents the existence of the Commonwealth. The break-up of the Commonwealth would be a major victory for South Africa's foreign policy. Why are the Government about to change this policy? Why are they about to defy the United Nations embargo? The Foreign Secretary has argued that he believes we should defend the Cape sea route and must not take risks with our lives. I am not competent to dwell at length on the implications of the Simonstown Agreement or on the Foreign Secretary's attitude to strategy, but I still have to hear him face up to what I should have thought would be a central issue if he believes this argument. The issue is in what circumstances should Britain exert its military strength on the Cape sea route. In what circumstances are we to attack the Russian fleet? Are we to do it on our own with South Africa in an operation perhaps similar to Suez, or are we to involve the Western Alliance and N.A.T.O.? If we are to do it in such circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary seriously believe that this will be a major consideration in defending this country?
Maybe the Foreign Secretary believes these things. Perhaps he genuinely feels that it is necessary for Britain's defence. But many of his colleagues have a more personal interest in this matter. I refer of course to the tic-up between the Tory Party and industrialists with interests in South Africa. It is a fact that of the


top 12 Tory firms that contribute most to the Tory Party to help them win elections, involving sums of over £250,000, no fewer than five have major interests in South Africa. Perhaps I should name the firms so that the House may see to what I am referring. I am referring, to Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, Rank, Plessey, Whitbread, Dunlop and Hill Samuel, which has important connections in that area. If we look at the smaller firms and their interests in South Africa the tie-up becomes even stronger.
The matter does not even stop there. We know that many hon. Members have important interests in these firms. Some have resigned directorships to take up jobs in Government. The worst excesses of this degrading alliance were manifested in January, 1968, when Tory M.P.s and industrialists visited South Africa to advise them to hold back on orders for arms until the return of a Tory Government. I should like to quote the Observer of 21st January, 1968:
Leading British Conservatives and industrialists are trying energetically to persuade the South African Government to postpone committing itself to arms purchases from France or other Continental countries. … The Conservative campaign is taking the form of visits and letters by M.P.s and industrialists. The South African Foundation, a Government-orientated organisation of businessmen, is co-operating, and Mr. Vorster's Cabinet is lending a receptive ear.
It is right to make the point that it is British investments in South Africa which are the matter for concern. It is not a question of exports or imports or the effect on our balance of payments. It has been made quite clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham that our trade with black Africa is much more important in its effect on our balance of payments than is our trade with South Africa.
I should like to refer to the visit by the Foreign Secretary to South Africa in February, 1968. Immediately on his arrival, he stated that a Conservative Government would operate the same system as it always had with South Africa, selling arms to her for defence. It would not be restricted by the United Nations' embargo. We have heard about the distinction between arms for internal repression and arms for external defence. I thought that the "Insight" team of the

Sunday Times completely demolished this hypocritical and phoney distinction.
I should like to make one further quotation from the Foreign Secretary, according to The Star, Johannesburg, in reply to a question about this distinction:
Questioned in Durban on the meaning of the Tory definition of 'arms for external defence', Sir Alec replied that he was confident that South Africa would only wish to buy from Britain bigger weapons needed for external defence, as smaller weapons for internal security were already manufactured in the Republic.
Of course, we all remember the conversation and discussions which our Foreign Secretary had with Vorster. We remember very well that at that time the M.C.C. had written to the Cricketing Association of South Africa and asked them not to lay down any conditions for the selection of their team and had asked that D'Oliveira would be acceptable. The Foreign Secretary came back and persuaded the M.C.C., after his discussions, not to pursue this line, not to insist on a reply from the South Africans.
I said that we did not deserve to have a Government committing this country to this policy of support for South Africa, and I certainly do not believe that this country deserves a Foreign Secretary who seems to be destined to go down in history as one of Vorster's leading British henchmen. One cannot but be appalled by the contradictory replies he made to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham on Monday. One has only to read HANSARD to be sure of the contradiction. The Foreign Secretary should remember that he is not dealing with the M.C.C. now: that there is a lot more than a game of cricket at stake here.
The central issue is whether this Government are going to align us with South Africa or whether they will stand up for multi-racialism and support and strengthen the Commonwealth. We on this side can only expose the folly of the Government's policy. We can try to let the world know that this Government do not speak on this issue for the great mass of the people in Britain. When I speak of the great mass of the people, I do not mean just the informed groups or the young people: I mean the great majority of British people. They


do not support the Government on this issue.
We cannot change the Government's mind, but I pay tribute to those hon. Members opposite who signed their Motion on this subject last week. They have the power to stop the Government taking this stupid and disgraceful decision. I hope that, when it comes to the Division tonight, they will not be found wanting.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech, and I recognise that there are many conventions surrounding maiden speeches in this House. The first is to seek the indulgence of the House, which I do most earnestly—the more so since I realise the subject matter which the House is debating. I assure the House that I am not deliberately trying to find shelter behind the courtesies normally shown a maiden speaker in order to make speaking on a controversial subject more easy. I speak from a genuine and close interest in these matters, which goes back many years and to which many of my hon. Friends and at least one right hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench can testify.
Another convention of the House is to pay some words of respect and tribute to one's predecessor, and for me this is no formalistic ritual. Denis Coe was, I believe, a valued Member of the House and a great respecter of it. He took considerable interest in the workings of the House and was tireless in his efforts to improve the conditions of hon. Members—a subject in which his successor also takes an interest. He was also highly regarded in his constituency. On all sides he was found to be friendly, helpful and hard-working, and he was a very active and conscientious constituency Member, with an enviable reputation. I have before me a formidable standard, I frankly own, by which to judge my own efforts and to be judged.
The third convention is to say something of one's constituency. Its name is not an adequate description, because, apart from the boroughs of Middleton and Prestwich, it also contains the urban district of Whitefield. Although all three

towns lie in Lancashire, I can speak of them with pride and affection, even though I am a Yorkshireman—although it is not unkown in this House for a Yorkshireman to represent a Lancashire seat. I should like to say more about these towns, but, following the last speaker, it would be improper of me, in view of the time allowed for this debate, to go into detail. I would just add that I am stimulated by the thought of representing their needs in this Parliament. If I am found wanting, there are at least four of my constituents in the House to see that I come up to standard, which is unusual for a constituency so far from London.
The convention that I have difficulty in following is to link the subject matter of the debate with my constituency, but all I can say is that my constituents' interest in overseas matters is very much alive, and I have had a great deal of correspondence on this question. Much as I have reservations on the general question of arms sales to South Africa, I cannot agree with the terms or spirit of the Opposition Motion.
The yardstick commonly used in discussion of arms sales is how far British actions are propping up a Government whose policies, based on race, are universally detested, and how far we are thought to be doing that. Just as a distinction can be made between trade in general and trade in arms, so I believe a distinction—I admit that it is more difficult—can be made between arms for internal purposes and those for external defence. It is not reasonable to make that distinction on what a weapon is theortically capable of: one should question the true purpose of the weapon, for which it is intended and for which it is reasonably certain to be used.
I do not believe, but it is only a judgment, that South Africa, whatever her faults, intends to wage an aggressive war or is likely to be involved in the foreseeable future in a defensive intra-continental struggle for which marine armaments would be a factor. If one is prepared to stretch the theories to the opposite judgment that I have made, then of course ordinary trade can be seen to bolster the South African Government—and right hon. Members opposite do not call for a cessation of all trade.
The policies which are being operated by the whole world in arms and other things towards South Africa are aimed at isolating that country. Their effects should be considered carefully. I cannot see one respect in which the system of apartheid has been eased in the time that these pressures have been applied. Rather, it has become more rigidly enforced. The traditional rift between the Dutch- and the English-descended South Africans, which used to carry over into party divisions, has been overcome significantly, and, as the pressure on South Africa mounted, the English-speaking people, for patriotic motives which seemed honourable to them, rallied to the Nationalist Government. The task for liberal or progressive critics such as Mrs. Suzmann has been made more difficult, because talk against the system has become, instead of just unfashionable, unpatriotic.
I must question what this policy of less contact and no arms for external defence has achieved. What is to be the consequence of this policy of isolation of South Africa if carried to its ultimate conclusion? The people who support its maintenance or intensification should consider what conclusion it will lead to.
I fear, knowing on the one hand the laager-type mentality of the Afrikaaner and on the other the relentlessness of many anti-racialists, that the conclusion will be violent. It may be that apartheid can only be overcome by a wave of bloodshed. That would be a dreadful conclusion to which to reconcile oneself.
South Africa is not a country of a few thousand whites or with a primitive industrial economy. A violent upheaval in South Africa would have appalling consequences. However senseless and immoral I might consider apartheid to be—and I so regard it—I would like to think that there is another way of its coming to an end.
I believe that there is another way through economic pressures. They are remorselessly and inevitably building up, and I suggest that they are no more slow in achieving a result than might be the processes leading towards violent revolution. They are more likely to take effect if some countries will deal with South Africa on a less restrictive basis.
Sensing that they are under attack, South African leaders feel more nervous and act more repressively. The natural economic forces and progressive political thought would stand more chance of doing their work if South Africa had a wider political relationship with the outside world. I know that it may not be in vogue to say this, but I believe it to be true, and I would wish at all costs to avoid the violent alternative which seems to be the other likely course.
I believe that we must say to our Commonwealth friends—because it is true—that we are resolutely against racialism and that the Government's intention in no way implies support of racialism. We have a right to be believed in this respect. Our desire to see the passing of the apartheid system is as sincere as that of other members of the Commonwealth. It is because I do not think that the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was founded in either racialism or hypocrisy that I shall vote against the Opposition Motion.

6.32 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: It is my very pleasant task to say to our two maiden speakers—my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst)—one on each side of the House, how very much we have enjoyed their contributions. The House will agree that they suffer a slight disadvantage in following two predecessors for whom the House has the very greatest respect—George Willis from Edinburgh, East, who had been with us for a very long time, and Denis Coe from Middleton and Prestwich, whom we had known less long but whom the whole House had grown to respect. Both maiden speakers, therefore, have a difficult task in following their predecessors. Having heard both of them today and the confident and intelligent contributions they have made to the debate—one of them conventional in observing all the procedures of the House and the other splendidly unconventional, but both of which the House enormously enjoyed—we shall look forward very much to hearing them again.
As I listened to the speech of the Foreign Secretary, I felt that I had never heard him so uneasy in a speech in this House. I thought that that was, perhaps,


a good sign. When towards the end of his speech he went on to refer to the decision which has to be made at the end of the day, I felt that this was, perhaps, one of those infrequent debates in the House which may have a possibility of influencing events. The Government cannot be unimpressed by the difficulties which they are meeting in their efforts to pursue a policy which was, perhaps, arrived at somewhat rashly without the full knowledge of what the repercussions of that policy would be if it were carried into action. Certainly, I felt that the Foreign Secretary was uneasy and that there was a possibility that in the meetings of Cabinet committees which will take place before eventually a decision is made, wisdom may prevail. It is on that assumption that I want to make my remarks this afternoon.
The whole House would be right to regard it as essential, as does the Opposition's Motion, that the correct definition of what is in the interests of Britain should take priority in our decisions on this matter. What matters, however, is how we define the interests of Britain in the situation in which we find ourselves at the centre of one of the gravest issues that the world has faced.
If we seek to do that and to look at the position in terms of the United Nations, the Commonwealth, black Africa, trade and our responsibility to our own people in Britain, I believe that the only answer can be that the Government, and the Foreign Secretary in particular, are misinterpreting and wrongly defining what are the interests of Britain in this situation.
Can it be at any point in the interests of Britain to flout a resolution of the Security Council, or more than one resolution, as would probably be the case, or even, as the Foreign Secretary indicated, go to the length of either abstaining or using the veto against a new resolution of the Security Council seeking to strengthen the existing arms embargo? Can it be in our interest to take that kind of action at the United Nations in the full knowledge that, in doing so, we would be standing together with, perhaps, Portugal and South Africa? What a familiar ring that has to it.
I remember throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s, when the party opposite were in power, time and time again one was ashamed of hearing reports from the United Nations that on a given resolution there were two or three abstentions—Britain, South Africa and Portugal. Are we moving back into a period when Britain is to be shamefully isolated with the most reactionary nations of the world on issues of this kind?
The Security Council resolution is supported and on all these issues of race the present policy of the United Nations is supported by our European friends, by the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the whole black third world. Therefore, in seeking on a matter of this kind and of this degree of moral importance to oppose the whole of the rest of the world and then to say that this is in the interests of Britain is nonsense. It cannot be in the interests of Britain. Nor can it be in the interests of Britain to put at risk, as the Foreign Secretary is apparenty prepared to do, continued co-operation within the Commonwealth.
The Government must not think solely in terms of whether Tanzania will leave the Commonwealth or whether Zambia or Uganda and Kenya will leave the Commonwealth. They must think in terms of the possibility that it may be mooted among many of the countries of the Commonwealth that it is Britain's membership of the Commonwealth which should be suspended if we take this attitude. Tragic as that would be, I am not at all sure whether I would not prefer that the Commonwealth remained an integrated whole with the temporary absence of a Britain which had taken leave of its senses, than that we should risk the total disintegration of the Commonwealth.
Hon. Members opposite had better take seriously the consequences of their intention, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said, we know what the reactions of many of the Commonwealth countries have been. One could add other countries. From what we hear, Malaysia seems to have grave doubts. New Zealand has said that she would in no circumstances propose to supply arms to South Africa. We can be quite certain of the strength of the line that Canada will have taken


So I think on this question of the Commonwealth that either the Government take the Commonwealth seriously or they do not, and to judge by the Foreign Secretary's speech this afternoon, they do not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East very rightly said, the right hon. Gentleman spent two or three minutes delivering a lecture to the Commonwealth nations on how they had better think twice before they seek to set their will against that of Britain.
I believe that here again the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are at risk of totally misunderstanding what the Commonwealth is all about, and perhaps this is at the heart of the Foreign Secretary's own dilemma, because I do not think he does understand this point; the Foreign Secretary does not appreciate that the concept of non-racialism is the very heart of the meaning of commonwealth and that, without that, the Commonwealth is as nothing. If we have the one who, until now, has been the leading partner in the Commonwealth—although we are now one of many equal nations in it—if we have Britain for one moment allying itself so clearly, as the black Commonwealth would think, with a racialist, apartheid, fascist—and I shall come to that point in a moment—South Africa, against all the meaning, as they believe, of what the Commonwealth stands for, then possibly irrecoverable harm will be done to the whole concept of Commonwealth. I hope that this will be thoroughly understood, and that the realisation of this, which is dawning, which must be dawning, steadily upon the minds of the members of the Government as they receive the replies to their letter on consultation, may indeed have some effect on them and may affect the course of their decision.
It is right that we should look to the future and to where we believe our British interests lie in relation to South Africa, to black Africa, and to the struggle between racialism and non-racialism, because I believe that we may now have reached the point—of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite can jeer about the fact that we still trade with South Africa; of course they can—at which we have to make new decisions, to re-examine exactly what our own relationship with South Africa should be in this situation which

now dominates the whole of Africa, because otherwise I fear that what we shall be doing will be creating for ourselves and our own future a Vietnam in Africa. Therefore I think we must look very closely at whether we believe that we can co-operate further with, and offer further help, further manifestations of sympathy and identification to, a country which persecutes, which is oppressive, which is racialist, which does torture, which does imprison without trial, which is, in fact, the most vivid embodiment of fascism that we know in the world today.
The Foreign Secretary can talk about his hope that by contact, by the opening up of South Africa, we may change the minds of white South Africans, but what we see happening much more is decent South Africans escaping to Britain and a greater closing of minds. It may well be that, with all this, we have to face the fact that it is not appropriate any longer for a Britain which believes in the principle of non-racialism to be the country which, above all others, is offering succour and support to South Africa.
I will give the House one other reason why it is not in the interests of Britain to resume arms sales and to offer the kind of moral support which that involves. The House will remember that I was one of those in the Government who was concerned with the policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, the policy of sanctions which was supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite—

Captain Henry Kerby: Not all.

Mrs. Hart: Indeed, there were a few, shamefully a few, who did not, but the majority of the party opposite did. When we considered the problem of making sanctions against Rhodesia successful, what was the main obstacle which frustrated those attempts? The main obstacle was South Africa. Why could we not introduce sanctions on imports into Rhodesia? Because it was the easiest thing in the world for such sanctions to be frustrated by South Africa. Why was it that the proposed telecommunications ban had difficulties? Because it would be frustrated by South Africa.
Not only do hon. Members opposite seek to make what we fear—though we


hope we are wrong—will be a dishonourable settlement with the regime in Rhodesia, but they also propose to intensify co-operation with the country which frustrated this country's policy in relation to the illegal regime.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am following the right hon. Lady's argument closely, but is not the logical end of her argument that if she is right about South Africa and Rhodesia, the Government of which she was such a distinguished member should have imposed sanctions on South Africa?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Hart: I will deal briefly with this argument. Of course, what I have just been saying implies that it may well be time now—

Sir Frederic Bennett: Too late.

Mrs. Hart: Wait a minute. No. I have just said that I believe the time may have arrived when Britain can no longer consider further development and co-operation with South Africa for the reasons which I have given, but what is quite clear—and surely this is clear to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), because he is a very intelligent hon. Gentleman—is that any effort to preserve trade with South Africa should certainly not be unilateral; it would have to be a multilateral effort; it would have to be an international effort. I do not think it is totally impossible for all time, but I think it is certainly a question which can be developed only as a result of international consideration, international proposals, in which we would have a part: but not unilaterally.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Balniel): Would the right hon. Lady also explain why the late Administration not only continued to trade with South Africa but continued the preferential access which South Africa has to our markets and fought very fiercely against pressure to remove it?

Mrs. Hart: I would say to the noble Lord that, on all these questions of trade, what he is seeking to do—let us be quite blunt about it—is to evade the moral responsibility of the party opposite by turning from the question of the supply

of arms, which is what we are discussing today—

Sir F. Bennett: The right hon. Lady started to turn.

Mrs. Hart: —into more generalised questions of trade. But let me say to the noble Lord that if we are to discuss trade I would refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said, that again, of course, if we are concerned with what is in the interest of Britain, we are bound to be concerned with the fact that we trade more with black Africa than we do with white Africa, where we have three million white Africans with whom we are dealing at the moment, compared with a potential trade with 300 million black Africans, many of them living in countries which have an actual or potential rate of economic growth of anything between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. If we are looking to British interests, this is where they lie. Let us be clear, therefore, that on trading matters, as on all other aspects of this matter, what the Government are proposing is directly opposed to every definition of what British interest is.
Let me conclude, because there are many hon. Members who are wishing to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in this debate, by saying that when the Foreign Secretary takes us into his local tour of defence strategy—and I know that my right hon. Friend will be dealing with this very fully when he winds up for our side—he frightens me, because the dangerous aspect of what he says takes one straight back to the John Foster Dulles containment policy. It is as though the Foreign Secretary has stood still since 1963, or even before then; he has not moved in his thinking and has not caught up with the world we are living in.
If we are concerned with what is in British interests, it is certainly in our interests that the Government of Britain should not cynically offend the most decent instincts of the people of Britain as they now propose to do. The Government know perfectly well that in the recent General Election the British electorate did not go to the polls with enthusiasm for South African racialism or with a passionate desire to end the Commonwealth. The Government will have to choose—and I hope that they will


choose wisely and responsibly—during the next month or two, between their responsibilities to Britain, to the Commonwealth and to the whole world outside this country which cares so passionately about the issues of race. I hope that, given time, there is still a chance that the decision will come out right.

Mr. Speaker: I again remind the House that very many hon. Members, all excited and keen about this issue, wish to speak. Brief speeches will help.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has generated a great deal of emotion, and this is to be expected. It was perhaps not lost on the House that her time for a change of policy towards South Africa has coincided with her change from one side of the House to the other. I join her in appreciation of the maiden speakers, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwick (Mr. Haselhurst). I am sure the House enjoyed them both and will look forward to hearing them again.
I wish that the hon. Lady had not gone quite as far as she did in condemnation. Any argument is spoilt by over-doing it. She described South Africa as "the worst and most vivid embodiment of fascism in the world". Surely, common sense apart, she as a senior Minister must have read the South African Press from time to time and she must know the Press is free. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the trouble with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They always forget there are numbers of people in South Africa who are fighting hard to modify the policies of the South African Government and who are discouraged by the sort of pronouncements she makes. When she spoke of the "decent South Africans who came over to this country" perhaps she had in mind Master Peter Hain. The Daily News, the Opposition paper in South Africa, had this to say after the cancellation of the South African cricket tour:
… it is one of the tragedies of the whole messy affair that so many British liberal opponents of the tour have been too busy establishing their own credentials of piety to take note of the fact that their behaviour was likely to have anything but the effect they

desired on the system that produces apartheid teams. They have a great deal to answer for.
Yes, they have a great deal to answer for, and among them is the right hon. Lady.
Of all the utterances of the new Government since they came to power the one that gave me most pleasure and satisfaction was in the speech of the Prime Minister during the debate on the Address when he said clearly and categorically that British foreign policy from now on would be guided by the British interest. It is remarkable that it should be necessary to advance such a proposition in the House. Why is it necessary? It is necessary because for the last five and a half years foreign policy has not been a policy at all. It has been a system of posturing and posing on the stage for the benefit of the audience, sometimes the Parliamentary Labour Party, sometimes the electorate, depending on the circumstances; and according to the notes of the orchestra, the orchestra being whatever resolutions of the United Nations or the O.A.U. it seemed to be fashionable to follow at the time. That has been foreign policy under the Labour Government. There is a change now. British interests are at stake, and we should all know it. I take this as read. There are two particular interests at stake.
There is defence, which the Foreign Secretary dealt with at some length, and economics, which one or two hon. Members have touched on. On defence, anyone who thinks that with the Russians moving into Aden and Mauritius there is no threat to the Western world which is concerned in the Indian Ocean needs to take another look at the map! It is said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and I dare say we shall hear more about it later if he catches your eye, that this is no concern to N.A.T.O. If it is no concern to N.A.T.O., it is about time it was.

Mr. Healey: I did not say it was of no concern to N.A.T.O. I said that N.A.T.O. does not share the assessment of military risk which is made uniquely in the United Kingdom so far as I know by the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who has just given way.

Mr. Hastings: That is perhaps rather a prettier way of saying precisely the


same thing. It is time that N.A.T.O. woke up to the fact that if the Russians think it important to be in Mauritius and Aden it is time the alliance paid attention to it.
On economies, the importance of South Africa to the balance of payments in this country goes without saying, but there is one other question on which I do not think anyone has touched. We have inherited an unhealthy level of unemployment from the previous Government. I hope that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are exercising their consciences in this matter, particularly when it comes to large orders for ships, heavy goods, machine tools and the rest, they will put the facts to their constituents so far as they are affected, in the factories and yards where the orders will go particularly where jobs may be in question or where there are no jobs at all.
I take these British interests as proved and will go no further into them. But I will turn to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his original statement on the supply of arms. He said firmly, and he said more or less the same this afternoon, that the matter of race in the world is one of the two questions which assails him most, the other being the Communist threat. With this I would wholly agree. For the few minutes in which I will take up the time of the House, I want to try to deal with this. I know it is very thin ice, but it is not a part of the skating rink which I am unused to trying to skate on, and I have some experience of Southern Africa. I ask the House at least to accept that, whereas our opinions differ on what should be done about these questions, they can be just as sincere from this side of the House and from my point of view as they can from the other side of the House and the other point of view.
We are concerned today with the effect of the supply of arms, and of putting our relations with South Africa on a different basis, on three separate relationships: the relationship between ourselves and Commonwealth countries, particularly certain African Commonwealth countries; the relationship between the various races of Southern Africa internally; and the relationship between the nations of developing black Africa north of the Zambesi and the countries south

of the Zambesi. I will take these three relationships in turn.
To take first our relationship with the Commonwealth, I hope I do not exaggerate, but it seems to me that the case of hon. Gentlemen opposite and of many people in this country who are voluble anti-apartheid exponents—and no blame to them for that—rests on two propositions which, boiled down and analysed, come to this. First, that "all men are equal", and secondly, that "the majority is always right". It may seem heinous to say so, but I do not accept either of these propositions. All men are not equal. They are each different even among those of the same skin, but in the context of Southern Africa as I know it, and I know it well, the difference between races is frighteningly profound. That is a fact. It is God's work, not ours. It may be nothing to be pleased about, but it is so.

Mr. Alexander M. Lyon: The hon. Member says that it is a fact that there are profound differences between the races—not between people at different cultural levels but between races. He says that this a God-given fact. First of all, his theology is bad. Secondly, has he never looked at the U.N.E.S.C.O. studies into the whole of the question of racial differences? Is he aware that they have found no difference between the races that can be substantiated by scientific evidence?

Mr. Hastings: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue I shall quote one or two authorities. It is a different thing to say that I perceive profound differences from saying that anybody is inferior to anybody else. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that.
The second proposition with which I was concerned was that the majority is always right. Perhaps that is a rather crude way of implying that the resolutions and opinions put out by the Committees of the United Nations and by organisations like that of African Union or of the Non-Aligned, and the rest, are too readily accepted. I see no reason for doubting that a country with our experience should necessarily be less well informed or less well able to make a sound judgment of affairs than the organisations that I have referred to.
Friendship between individuals or between nations depends, rather than on those two propositions, upon these. First, it rests upon a mutual recognition of reality, which is another word for truth, and, secondly, upon a recoginition of respective interests. That is how trust grows, and it is my complaint that in recent years in the Commonwealth we have actually encouraged a sense of unreality. We have done it over Rhodesia again and again and again. Furthermore, we have subordinated our own national interests to such an extent that to assert them now appears arbitrary and unreasonable. That is the effect of lack of clear policy over the last few years.
I now want to turn to the question of the relationship between the races themselves in Southern Africa. Here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): of course, this is a delicate matter, but I have asserted difference—not superiority or inferiority; heaven knows, no, but difference, yes. I call in aid here such authorities as one of the most sensitive and, I believe, important books upon the African scene in recent years, "The Primal Vision" by John Taylor, the General Secretary of the Church Missionary Society who has an enormous experience of Africa. Then I wish that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had had the benefit that I had of listening to men like Dr. Mike Gelphand of University College, Salisbury, and also of reading his work on Shona Ritual and Belief, or thirdly, to talk to the Principal of the University of Zululand, Professor Maré, who speaks five African languages more or less perfectly and is an absolute authority on the impact of Western learning upon the African mind—a thing that all too many of us, in our arrogance, fail to analyse or appreciate. All those three and many others would concur in what I have just said.
To assert that differences exist is not a crime. It is the truth. How to cope with it in Southern Africa is an appalling problem. But let us at least begin to study the problem rationally and sensibly in this House. To realise that a problem exists, is a step at least.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the hon. Member agree that in

South Africa today any trace of skin colour automatically means that a person is non-white and is therefore inferior, and that every possible opportunity has been taken, since the Statute of Westminster, to remove voting rights from Africans and coloured people? How can the hon. Member square his argument with the fact that any progress towards equality of person should be based upon ability, intellect and not upon differences in colour? Differences of colour do not necessarily mean differences in inferiority and superiority?

Mr. Hastings: I gave way to the hon. Member because he is a new Member. It is a lesson to me that one should not do so. I am coming to that point. I said that there was a problem and I asked the House to come with me to the extent of agreeing that this problem exists.
Separate development, say its apologists, is a means of trying to cope with this appalling problem. There is a distinction here that I want to advance in all sincerity. Where separate development is based on a sympathetic understanding of the problem of transition it is by no means necessarily wrong; indeed, we can find examples, for instance, in the Transkei, where power is indisputably passing into African hands over large parts of the Continent of Africa. In this respect, it can be said that there is an improvement and an advance. But where separate development is based on the assertion of the superiority in every way of one race, it is evil, false and doomed to erosion and failure. That is the distinction that has to be made.
It can be argued that the white races in Southern Africa are superior economically and in terms of power. It can equally be argued by anyone who has studied these matters that the Bantu people, in terms of their attitude to their elderly relatives, are vastly superior to us here. These are differences. I seek to put to the House that this is a distinction of the greatest importance to anyone who wants to take a rational view of these matters.
I come finally to the case of the relationship between the countries of what is termed black Africa, north of the Zambesi, and countries to the south. This is the most difficult, intractable and,


in a sense, most important problem, because all concerned must live together on the African continent. The tragedy is, quite understandably, that these relationships are poisoned by a sense of outrage in the North at what they interpret as a view about race—the superiority and the rest that I dwelt on only a few moments ago. But it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to help solve this problem to take a practical view. It is no good making pious noises and false promises from thousands of miles away. We have had too much of that ever since this problem first raised its head. The only way in which the Government or this country, or any of us as individuals, can make a contribution—since we cannot resolve the problem by force of arms or any of the other ways that have been discarded, and rightly, for so many reasons in this House—is to encourage contacts between the South and Central Africa and the North by any legitimate means—mutual aid, trade, any way that we can think of. For instance, there is the "good neighbour" policy of South Africa. There has been a real change in this respect in recent years. I suspect the contacts to which I have referred are far more widespread than is ever admitted in the Press. Everybody knows about Malawi, but it does not end there. Of course the shouts of disapproval and hatred are understandably still evident, but underneath the contacts are growing, even between Rhodesia and the North. Where they exist a contribution towards a solution of the problem of racialism and all that we dislike in the House is taking place.
There may be those in the House—there are certainly people in the country—who think that apartheid can be broken in the end by violence internally or by some form of invasion from the North. Let us discount any thought that action of the kind envisaged by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon will make it more likely that the Communists have been doing everything they can over the years to increase their penetration in this part of the world. Everybody who is familiar with the area knows that that is true.
I happen to have been there, and from my own absolute conviction I say that there is no threat at this time in the

Caprivi strip or the Zambesi Valley. I spent some time there the year before last. It is not practical. There is too much power and organisation in the south, and it is quite capable of resisting it. It will not end that way. It can only end gradually, through encouraging the sort of contacts of which I have spoken, instead of actively discouraging them, between the South and Central Africa, and by the gradual economic advances of the Africans. Of course, that economic advance of the African has gone further in South Africa than anywhere else in the whole Continent.
How, otherwise, does one account for the sort of experience I had in Laurenço Marques not so long ago. "It is a splendid city. There is absolutely no colour feeling of any kind—in fact, less than we find in many of our own cities." I said to a South African taxi driver there—a black man, "It must be a relief to you to be here and away from Johannesburg." He replied, "I cannot wait to get back." I was amazed, as anyone would be. I asked him why. He answered, "There are opportunities to get on in South Africa, but we cannot do so here."
It is not easy to explain, and I know that one example like that does not prove much, but as economic power flows into the hands of the African and to other peoples besides the white in South Africa so the rigidity of apartheid will inevitably begin to fade, as it will fade through mutual inter-dependence—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Mr. Robert Hughes indicated dissent.

Mr. Hastings: The hon. Member shakes his head. I hope that one day he will go there and see for himself.

Mr. Hughes: I have seen it for myself.

Mr. Hastings: These are the only two practical ways—gradual interdependence of nations and people growing across the Zambesi Valley and economic advancement—by which the things we all dislike will begin to fade. To encourage that process by any means is our duty and the duty of this Government, and the supply of arms has precious little to do with that effect. By refusing them arms, we should only drive the South Africans


further into their laager, which would do the greatest damage.
I hope—I can only hope—that these reflections, such as they are, will have been of some interest to the House. At least they stem from some study over a number of years. Indeed, my experience of this part of the world in a sense goes back to my childhood. I hope, finally, that they will serve to show at least that those who, like me, will continue to work ceaselessly for a return to normal relations between the United Kingdom and our Government and people on the one hand and South Africa, Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories on the other—in the interests of all the races of Africa, as I see it—are not motivated by greed or imperial ambition but by some understanding and some commonsense.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I trust that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) will forgive me if I do not follow him into his excursions into racial theory and the rationale of events now taking place in the Zambesi Valley and elsewhere in Southern Africa. If I were to do so, I would strain beyond measure the tradition of non-controversy which I believe is expected of a maiden speaker.
Indeed, hon. Members may wonder, as they may have done in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haslehurst) why I have chosen to speak in a debate in which, inevitably, passions run high and controversy is present. My excuse for doing so is that these matters relate directly to the debate about moral issues and their relation to politics which should be and I believe is taking place in all the constituencies.
This was certainly so in my constituency during the election, and although I hope at a later date to speak on matters more directly relating to my constituency, such as transport and advanced technology and so on, and to those matters in which I have some small store of specialised knowledge—broadcasting subjects—on this occasion I should like to deal with the issues raised in this debate. They are, as I said, not

unknown to the town of Derby and to many of my predecessors, independent-minded men who have sat for Derby before me.
It is in this context that I should like to pay a tribute to my immediate predecessor, Niall MacDermot. He was, I know, immensely respected in Derby, and he had many friends, as I am discovering every day, in this House. He won a famous by-election in Lewisham in 1957, giving there the first push to that ever-increasing pendulum of by-election gains and losses which may very soon, I fear, shake right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their turn. He has now, in the prime of life, gone on to a new career, and I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him well in that.
Niall MacDermot, of course, was just the latest in a long tradition of independent-minded Members for Derby. They go back to Samuel Plimsoll, 100 years ago, who, we are told, after a debate in which he was enraged beyond measure by the attitude of the Government Front Bench, shook his fist under Mr. Speaker's nose and had to be forcibly restrained and removed from the House. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not a precedent that I intend to follow. At a later stage, Mr. Plimsoll gave up his seat to a member of the then Government in the hopes that this grandiloquent gesture would persuade the Administration to urge on the processes of reform. I feel that I must also assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that, although I hope to persuade them of the error of their ways, this is a sacrifice that I have no intention of making.
Perhaps the most distinguished recent Member for the town of Derby, who will be referred to, I am sure, at greater length by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson), is Philip Noel-Baker, who also left this House recently. He entered the House after another celebrated by-election, fought entirely on one specific issue of morality applied to international politics—in that case, the application of sanctions to Italy. It is because of the interest shown then and since in international matters by my constituency that I feel bold enough to rise to speak today. I am particularly emboldened by the knowledge that, if Philip Noel-Baker were still


here, he, too, would rise to speak on this subject.
It is astonishing that the Foreign Secretary entered into his general comments on South Africa in such ignorance of the depth of feeling raised on this issue, not merely in the House and in the country—the House will remember I am sure that we are now ourselves a multi-racial community—but also in the United Nations and in the rest of the world. The questions which are asked of me in my constituency and by my friends are simple and straightforward, but they have not, I regret to say, either in the right hon. Gentleman's previous statements or in this debate, received straightforward answers.
The questions are roughly these. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman places such reliance on this Russian naval threat around the Cape? Where are the many submarines, no doubt with snow on their periscopes, which are at this moment surfacing in the waters of the Cape? It is surprising that the United States, a world power seriously concerned with a Soviet naval threat wherever it may appear, remains relatively unconcerned in this case if we take the decision to lift the arms embargo as a relative quotient of concern—ours against theirs.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned about Tanzania and Chinese arms. I was not clear whether Chinese submarines are also surfacing in the waters of the Cape, but does he think that a decision to sell arms to South Africa would make any less likely the possibility that Tanzania, or Tanganyika, as he called it, any less ready to receive assistance from China? Can we blame the countries of black Africa if in this matter they take the line that their enemy's enemy is their friend?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman feel that adequate consultations with the Commonwealth are still possible in this matter, when already he appears to have taken a decision in principle, judging from his quoted statements in South Africa, on a prior commitment at least to the sale of some arms. Why does he feel that the Commonwealth can now take him seriously, when there is, as we know, a desire by the South African Government to re-negotiate the Simonstown Agreement, to seek a marriage con

tract before the consummation of this somewhat unusual special relationship in which he may enter can take place?
Why does the right hon. Gentleman feel that we can set aside the United Nations resolutions of 1963 and 1964 for which this country voted, in spite of the reservations expressed at that time by Sir Patrick Dean, during the time of his administration? Why, above all else, does he feel that we can salve our consciences on the issue of arms to South Africa—and that is what I believed the debate was about when I came into the Chamber, and not the wide-ranging global surveys of dubious relevance which we have heard from some hon. Gentlemen opposite—by saying that it is possible to draw a valid distinction between those arms which will be used for external defence only and those which may be used for internal repression? Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say that the Nimrod and Buccaneer aeroplanes could not be used overland, and has not the latter already been used in counter insurgency operations? Who will stop ships any ships—being used to defend the coastal waters of South-West Africa as well as the Republic.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware of the South Africans' own estimates as revealed in the Defence White Paper of 1969. He may not have been aware of their estimates of the use to which some of these sophisticated aircraft can be put. I want to read to the House just one passage from the South African Defence White Paper of 1969:
The contribution of the South African Air Force to landward defence consists of: Ground support and reconnaissance for Land Forces. In this rôle bombers, ground support aircraft and specialist aircraft are available. Some of these are, however, becoming obsolete and will, in due course, have to be replaced. Steps have already been taken to procure additional ground support aircraft.
Is it so absolutely clear that none of the things on the South African shopping list which are now being entertained by Her Majesty's Government could not be used in that sort of rôle?
It is clear that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Defence, if we look at his remarks in another place in 1963, and again today, has some reservations. In 1963 he said in answer to a Question:
No one believes for one single moment that the South African Government are buying Buccaneers, extremely expensive aircraft,


for enforcing a policy of apartheid."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, December, 1963; Vol. 254, c. 249.]
I am not so sure that the noble Lord would say that with such certainty today. I am not so sure that the Buccaneer aircraft has not been used and will not be used again and could not be used in the future for insurgency repression in South Africa and South-West Africa.
The fact—and I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree with this—is that it is the totality a apartheid as a system to which we are opposed, and it is here that our impact on the rest of the world will be considered. It is rightly said that to govern is to choose both our options and our friends. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are set upon a course which could be gravely misguided, a course which could lead to the alienation of this country from opinion in the United Nations, and in the specific departures of many members from the Commonwealth.
I do not believe that the policy of what we may call sell-a-gun-boat is any more relevant or desirable than the policy of send-a-gun-boat used to be. I do not think that one can sell or give firearms to a homicidal person. We should not do this. There should be a total ban on the supply of arms to the Republic of South Africa. I cannot stress too much what the consequences of this action will be seen to be. Actions are what they appear to be to the rest of the world, and it is no good saying to the rest of the world, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire did, that we hope that we shall go on to influence the Republic of South Africa by maintaining a closer contact between ourselves and them. All these contacts have been maintained over 20 or 25 years, and successive United Kingdom Governments have gone further and further in their attempts to maintain normal links with the Republic of South Africa, but the system of that country has become more entrenched, and in all respects worse. Smuts has given way to Malan, to Strijdom, to Verwoerd, to Vorster. I do not believe that the policy of closer contact has any effect on the Government of South Africa. I believe that the results of the recent election in the Republic bear out the fact that the policy of quarantining and isolating South Africa may have had some effect, and

the nervous reaction of the South African electorate to the more extreme Afrikaaner Party may be an indication that they are worried at the growing isolation of the régime.
I apologise if I have strayed into controversy. I know that many hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich whom I have known for many years since we were undergraduates together, have reservations about the policy with which the Government are now flirting. I acknowledge the genuine doubts, and I bring them to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman if he has not noticed them.
I am deeply conscious of my youth and inexperience in the House. I was born in the year in which the right hon. Gentleman first entered the service of the State as P.P.S. to Neville Chamberlain. I should like to say to him that, like other new Members, I respect him as a symbolic link with those times, as a link with the traditions of Parliament going back for many years, but, like other new Members, I would prefer that connection with the past to remain symbolic and not literal. I hope, and I should like to believe, that over the years we have learned something. I should like to believe that we have learned that one cannot do business deals with regimes like that in South Africa on precisely the same terms as one deals with everyone else. I had hoped that we would have had some new thoughts on global strategy since 1950, but there was no real indication of that today.
There is a fine sentence in a novel by L. P. Hartley, with which hon. Members may be familiar. It is called "The Go-Between". It is not, I fear, about the right hon. Gentleman and his visit to Pretoria, but it begins like this:
The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.
I regret to say that it is as a citizen of the past that the Foreign Secretary has come before the House today. I think that that was shown by his reference to Tanganyika, rather than Tanzania. I beg him to accept the realities of the present. We do things differently now. We do things differently because we have to, and I urge the Government not to follow a policy which will be dangerous, divisive and deluded.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Like other new Members I rise today with more than the usual amount of anxiety of one who is making a maiden speech because, like them, I realise that it is contrary to convention for maiden speakers to talk on controversial subjects, and if there is one point of agreement in the debate, it must surely be that this is a controversial debate. I am, however, fortified by the certainty that my opening remarks at least will meet with approval from hon. Members on both sides, because I wish to pay a tribute, and whilst it must of necessity be brief, it is nonetheless sincere for that, to my predecessor. Mr. Frederic Harris was a Member of this House for 22 years and entered originally at a memorable by-election which will long be remembered by the Conservatives of Croydon, but which I am sure was quickly forgotten by our opponents there.
During that long period of 22 years Mr. Frederic Harris created a unique position for himself in Croydon, one of wide respect from members of all parties, and it is perhaps a tribute to him and also to our democratic institutions that during the recent General Election both my opponents interrupted their campaigns to pay him a personal tribute of thanks for his work for the people of Croydon and to wish him well because of the serious illness with which he is now beset.
It was also a singular pleasure for him, in the last weeks of the last Parliament, to be admitted a Freeman of the Borough of Croydon. I believe that this was the first occasion upon which a sitting Member had been so honoured by that Borough. Now aged 55, an early age to retire from public life, Mr. Harris is very ill, and I am sure that I shall be conveying the thoughts of hon. Members on both sides of the House if I wish him well and a speedy return to full health.
My qualification for intervening in this debate is that during the last 27 months I have made five visits to South Africa. Hon. Members opposite have poured scorn on those who have business interests in South Africa, so let me make it quite clear that I have to thank hon. Members opposite, and particularly those who were our predecessors in Government,

for the fact that when I went to South Africa I responded to their exhortations to export and, indeed, to their inducements, when they offered a 50 per cent. concession on the fare and on my hotel bill and hotel expenses.
The part of this Motion to which I wish to refer is that which states that the present intention of the Government will threaten
… the political, economic and strategic interests of this country.
It is not my party, nor is it the Government, which has introduced the question of economic or of political interests. Others more experienced than I have dealt with the strategic questions, but surely the political interests of the country can be damaged only if we fail to fulfil either our legal or our moral obligations.
I understand that it is the case of hon. Members opposite, and of those who pontificate on the subject outside, that this country, and in particular this Government, has a moral duty to continue the embargo imposed by our predecessors. What type of morality is it which says to British Servicemen, which says to those who serve in the Royal Navy, "You can share the same naval base as men of the South African Navy; you can share the same barracks, and the same facilities—indeed, you can share the same risks, but those with whom you share those risks are not to be trusted with arms with which to defend themselves"? That, to me, is no morality. It is the situation when people are trying to face in both directions at the same time, or, if not that, it is a question of appeasement of those in another part who shout more loudly than do our friends.
Britain's long-term political interests are not and never have been served on a basis of facing two ways at the same time. They are served only by decisions which are made in the light of the country's needs, and by fulfilling obligations which have been freely entered into. We share the naval base with South Africa. We share a duty, by mutual necessity, to protect the Cape route. We therefore have a moral obligation to supply South Africa with the means to enable her to play her part under the Treaty of Simonstown.
What is the grave economic damage to which the Motion refers? We have


heard much lately of the possibility that the supply even of marine arms will have repercussions on trade with other African countries north of the Zambesi. What is that trade at the moment? It appears from the document sent to all hon. Members by the Africa Bureau that at the present time our exports to countries north of the Zambesi are worth £359 million but that our imports from those countries are worth £515 million. Who is threatening whom? Surely this attitude shows the folly of mixing politics with trade. There was no question of trade with other countries, about our trade relationships with other countries, before our predecessors introduced the embargo.
What is the other effect? Suppose that supplying arms to South Africa were to influence our trading figures with countries north of the Zambesi. What about our trade with South Africa? I have heard much in this House, and I have read much in the newspapers, to the effect that our trade has not been affected by the embargo, and that point has been made again today in this debate. That conclusion is arrived at by looking at statistics.
I can tell hon. Members opposite, as one who has carried samples of British building materials in every centre in South Africa—Pretoria, Johannesburg, Pietermaritburg, Port Elizabeth, East London, Cape Town—that this embargo has had an effect on our trade, and whilst it is not part of the Government's case that this should influence our decision, this point has been introduced into this Motion by the Opposition and it should, therefore, be answered. It is extremely difficult for a salesman in South Africa today to answer the question: "You have a good product, but why should we buy that, when you will not even supply us with arms with which to defend ourselves?"
There is a great fund of goodwill existing between South Africa and Great Britain. This is natural, because so many of that nation are of British extraction. The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) has said that, as she put it, many good white South Africans were emigrating from that country to this. I do not have those statistics, but I have them for emigration from this country to South Africa. They are certainly sub

stantial. In 1965 there were 12,012 emigrants; in 1966, 12,233; 1967, 11,636; 1968, 14,589, and in 1969, 18,812. In other words, in the last five years very nearly 70,000 British subjects have emigrated to South Africa. South Africa should certainly he an expanding market for this country, and hon. Members opposite who refer only to statistics to prove that trade has not been affected by the embargo are deluding themselves.
I have been a Member for only two or three weeks, but during that time I have heard a word which I think is particularly unfortunate and particularly derogatory. It has been used in this Chamber today, and was used in a supplementary question last week on this issue. The word is "Munich". It is a word that seems to come very freely from the other side when talking about arms for South Africa. But, in my opinion, if that derogatory word is apt in any way today it is apt only when applied to those who would deny our kith and kin the weapons they need with which to defend themselves—and the emphasis must be on the word "defend." All I can say of the word that seems to come so freely from the lips of hon. Members opposite is, "Let the cap be worn by him whom it fits".

7.38 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I am sure that the whole House will agree that we have just listened to two remarkably effective maiden speeches by the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor). They both followed illustrious predecessors and, judging by their contributions today, I am sure that both are destined to make contributions equally as effective as those of their predecessors.
It will not surprise the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West if I say that although I admire the effectiveness of his speech, I disagree with it, and it will not surprise the hon. Member for Derby, North when I tell him that I agree with very much of what he said. Indeed, I consider that he has already done a service to the debate by eliminating many of my remarks, which would have covered the same territory.
I say to those who have personal experience and knowledge of South Africa, as have the hon. Members for Croydon,


North-West and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), that I wish that when they went to South Africa they had taken the opportunity, if it were afforded them, to visit, for example, the resettlement areas about which we have heard from the Black Sash Movement and the churches in South Africa, and to visit those whose families have been torn apart because of the policy of apartheid. If they would go and visit those places where people are expected to eke out a living without homes or sanitation or employment, they could bring back a more realistic picture than the one they usually present to the House.
If we are looking back to the time about which both maiden speakers spoke when we engaged in hostilities, we can remember that in 1938 the present Prime Minister of South Africa had to be locked up by General Smuts because of his sympathies with Hitler's theories. That particular leopard has not changed his spots. He is following a policy of cruelty and repression of the great majority of the people in his country.
I want to indicate briefly why the Leader of the Liberal Party, my other colleagues and I, will support this Motion in the Lobby. When the Kennedy Administration came to power in the United States it did so amid a great deal of suspicion in the uncommitted world. There was suspicion because it was a rich and powerful nation, potentially agressive, which had an Administration possibly based on a level of greed and prosperity unknown to those other nations. One Of the great achievements of the Kennedy Administration was that very early in its life it managed to dispel this image of the United States among the uncommitted countries and to convey the impression that they had an interest in equal rights. They had a motivation somewhat higher than the 100 per cent. interest of the United States right round the world. That was a success story in great contrast to the early days of this Administration in Britain because already in the first few weeks they have created an atmosphere of mistrust, suspicion and anxiety right round the world.
I disagreed with only one thing said by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), and perhaps he did not mean it in the way in which it came across in his speech. He seemed to sug

gest that the East-West conflict was one major topic which was not involved in this question. I should have thought that Africa south of the Sahara is an area where the cold war confrontation is not yet present. My great fear, and one of the fears of my party as a result of the policy decision which may be taken by the present Government, is that they may succeed in bringing the cold war confrontation into Africa. They may succeed in doing so because the strategic conception which the Foreign Secretary gave was based on no consideration of what is happening in the African continent itself.
If we look at what was said by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) about the Caprivi Strip and the Zambesi Valley we find that he was looking at that area through the eyes of South Africa. Looking at it from the other side, I remember talking with President Kaunda in Lusaka. We see that the Zambians and Tanzanians feel a real threat of aggression from the south. They are justified in feeling that when they look to the Caprivi Strip and at the air forays made from South Africa in support of Rhodesia and on the frontiers of these countries.
It is important to recognise that these are legitimate fears. Perhaps the meeting today of President Kaunda, President Milton Obote and President Julius Nyerere may turn out to be an historic meeting. I want to take my argument on the level submitted from the Government of the interests of this country. Even taking that yardstick, the Government are profoundly wrong in their judgment. What will be the strategic gain if we claim that we shall be able to protect the sea routes round the Cape if one consequence is that the hitherto nonaligned countries then find it necessary to protect themselves and take that protection from where it is offered and we suddenly find Russian naval and military bases on the East and West Coasts of Africa? I believe this is a disastrous development. I hope that even at this stage the Government will be persuaded to think again.
I turn to a particular question about the Simonstown Agreement because this was raised in Question Time the other other day and the Foreign Secretary indicated that he would make some inquiries. One of the terms of the


Agreement between this country and South Africa is that there will be no racialist policies in the installations at Simonstown. Yet already we find there is not equal pay for the races and that racial discrimination is operating there contrary to the written Agreement which South Africa has signed. I should like to know what steps the Government are to take if they are to participate in a re-negotiation of the Agreement and if, as they appear to believe, the arms sales policy is part of the Agreement. If we accept the sincerity of their detestation of apartheid, what steps will they take to see that this term in the Agreement is properly recognised?
I had the good fortune to spend some years in my 'teens in Africa. I visited two or three of the countries there again two years ago. It is my profound belief that it is extremely important that we should maintain the belief of the Western Christian Civilisation in the principle of the equality of man and should stand up and be counted against racial oppression wherever it is found. We have to understand that in many countries apparent support for the strategic position of South Africa appears to be a denial of that. I say "appears to be"; I do not say that it is, but it appears to be. That must be clearly understood by the Government.
We are faced with a situation in which many Communist powers will be able, following this policy decision, to go round Africa say, "It is only we who believe in the equality of man and we are willing to help you." We are turning our backs on much of the pioneering work which was done by people from this country in the early colonial era, particularly in East and Central Africa. I appeal to the Foreign Secretary, because he, too, came from the County of Lanark. He knows that Julius Nyerere was a graduate of Edinburgh University and that Kenneth Kaunda was brought up under the wing of one of David Livingstone's colleagues.
This mistake is being made at the time when a dividing line is being drawn right through the place where the statue of David Livingstone stands, unfortunately perhaps but symbolically with his back towards Rhodesia and looking across the Victoria Falls to Zambia and the North. I hope that the Government will not create the impression that they

wish symbolically to tear down that statue and to put in it place a great plastic £-note, but that we shall follow the ideals which we followed in Africa before. I hope that this debate will appear in the history books as merely a non-event. I hope that the Government will change their mind and not go ahead with sales of arms to South Africa. I hope that they will heed representations by the United States, Canada and the Commonwealth, and will recognise in weighing up the gains and losses of this policy that the losses are very substantial indeed. I hope that at the end of the day we shall be able to put this sorry chapter of our political history down simply as one example of instant government which did not come off.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) will not expect me to express agreement with many of the things that he said.
I cannot come to the main burden of my speech without referring to the two excellent maiden speeches we have heard from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor). I am sure that the whole reached before long, if only because, as House is sorry to hear that Mr. Frederic Harris, for whom we had much affection, is not well.
I believe that the time has come when the indecision on this matter should end. Therefore, I hope that a decision will be I understand it, the needs of the South African Navy are urgent, particularly for three frigates. Our shipyards are short of work. Although this may be the wrong consideration, it would be a great help to them to obtain the orders for such frigates, whether the orders go through Vosper Thorneycroft or to Scotland at Yarrows. If a decision is not taken soon, I imagine that it will be necessary for the South African Navy to place further orders in France. Those of us who have visited South Africa recently know that there have been considerable difficulties about the ordering of the French submarines. There is the language difficulty and the fact that special flats had to be hired in Toulon to get the French crews ready to take over these boats.

Mr. John Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously contending that there is a great shortage of naval work in our specialist naval shipbuilding yards today?

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am saying that all our shipyards desperately need it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that many of our shipyards build warships as well as merchant ships. It would be of the greatest assistance to Cammell Laird, for example, to have orders for these ships, if they were to go there, although I agree that the orders are likely to go elsewhere.
My reason for intervening in the debate is not only that I went out to the Cape last January and went round the Simonstown base but that I had some part in the negotiations which led up to the Simonstown Agreement. Indeed, I was very nearly the Minister who had to go out there to hand the base over.
Therefore, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles about the condition of the Cape coloureds. My recollection of my part in those negotiations is that I was constantly making proposals to the South African authorities to ensure that the position of the Cape coloureds was no worse after the takeover than it was before, because before the takeover they were my responsibility. Until the hon. Gentleman spoke today I had no evidence whatever that those conditions were not carried out faithfully. It makes it all the sadder, in my view, that the British Government are the ones who appear to have defaulted at any rate on the spirit of the Agreement with regard to the supply of warships. Those negotiations were carried out in a spirit of co-operation. Few of us at that time envisaged the kind of situation which has arisen.
There is a tendency to exaggerate the importance of Simonstown as a Naval base. The berthing facilities are not very adequate. Even with the new basin, they will not be. There is a fairly good graving dock there, but it will take only a light fleet carrier. When we handed over the base to the South African Government, the total civilian labour force was only 500.
The great value of the base is its position, the fact that between Gibraltar and Australia or Bombay or Singapore

there are no proper naval bases apart from Simonstown and Salisbury Island at Durban. It is to the defence question that the House should be addressing itself. I realise how strongly hon. Members opposite feel on many of the moral issues involved. This makes it difficult to understand why they did not make alternative arrangements to the Simonstown Agreement, perhaps to create a new naval base or come to some new alliance in the area.
With the new balance of power in the Mediterranean, with the arrival of the new Soviet units, with their extremely up-to-date weapons systems, the southern flank of N.A.T.O. has been extended from the Mediterranean to the Cape to an area which is not covered by N.A.T.O., which is not covered by CENTO, and which is not covered by S.E.A.T.O. If hon. Members opposite felt so strongly on the issue of co-operation with the South African Government, they should have thought about alternative arrangements.
The Soviet Navy is divided into four different fleets. The extent to which it has built up in recent years is astounding. When the Russians laid down the Sverdlovsk class cruisers everybody in Britain tended to think that they did not know what they were doing. They were embarking on a completely new policy of extending their naval power. They have carried it to a very considerable extent so that with their navy divided into four fleets they can still send an astounding number of modern units around the Cape and into the Indian Ocean. This is the extent to which the defence considerations have altered beyond anything foreseen at the time of the Simonstown Agreement.
A second factor which was not foreseen in those discussions was the closing of the Suez Canal. It would have seemed incredible in those days that the Suez Canal would be permanently closed and even more incredible that merchant shippers should get into the habit of thinking of it as being normal to go all that extra mileage round the Cape. This is now so. Even if the Suez Canal were opened tomorrow, which it could not be, it would never re-establish itself with the same importance as it had before.
We cannot blink the fact that our lines of communication to Australia, to the East and to the Persian Gulf are dangerously exposed and are a wide-open invitation to any troublemakers there may be. I would not speculate on the motives of the Soviets in detaching these units to this area and in showing so much interest in it, but it is a factor that must be taken into account. It is a factor that should be taken into account by the black States in the North which are bound to be affected by it in the long run. Indeed, the latest news from Mauritius is not welcome.
There is this enormous gap in dockyard facilities between Gibraltar and Australia. I cannot believe that the time will not come when that shipping may need protection. When one goes to the Cape one sees the number of merchant ships that stand off outside Capetown Harbour and the number of ships that pass by without bunkering there at all, because many of them bunker in other ports. This makes one realise the extent to which our lifelines are being exposed.
Another factor which has changed since the rather loosely drawn Simonstown Agreement has been that a system of apartheid which hardly anyone in the House would defend has been fastened more and more firmly on South Africa. Indeed, I believe that even if the United Party had won the last election unexpectedly it would have found it extremely difficult to have reversed this system. The system is there to stay. It is not a system that we like, but that does not absolve us from facing up to the very real defence threat to the Western world.
If we are not prepared to work more closely with the South African Navy, we should arrange some other commitment with other Powers, perhaps N.A.T.O. Powers, to look after this area. At the moment we are getting the closest possible co-operation from the South African Navy and undertaking manoeuvres with it, yet we are forcing it to use obsolete weapons and ships, for example with Italian fire control systems. This is absurd.
It was said in an article in the Sunday Times that only two Soviet hunter-killer submarines were in the area, but hunter-killer submarines, nuclear-powered, are formidable vessels compared

with old-fashioned frigates. The truth of the matter is that we are simply not in a position to meet any form of conventional challenge, however, surreptitious, in that area.
I very much hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will come to an early decision and that he will agree, at least for maritime defence purposes, to supply arms to South Africa. I am not much impressed by the argument that these three frigates, or whatever it may be, could be used for internal suppression. That is highly unlikely. I suppose that the matter is more arguable in the case of aircraft, but, if we are to continue calling on the South African Navy to bear the brunt of this defence, we should do more about it ourselves.
Under the Simonstown Agreement, it was envisaged, and it was so written in the Agreement, that there would be two British frigates remaining based on Simonstown. This is no longer done. When I was there in January, not one was there. So we have thrown the whole of this effort on to the South African Navy. We must face the issue squarely. We cannot build another base in the area immediately, and it would, I imagine, take a long time to bring other allies in for the defence of that place. If we look upon it, as I believe we should, as the new southern flank of N.A.T.O., we must do something about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I make one final appeal that hon. Members be generous and brief, for it might then still be possible to call a considerable number of those who have waited all day.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: In view of the time, I shall not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). He spoke of the need to preserve our lifelines. One suspected that, like his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he wants Britain to revert to the rôle of world policeman. In 1970 that is just not on. I join with the hon. Gentleman, however, in the tributes which he paid to the two maiden speakers, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor). We welcomed their observations


and, in particular, the tributes which they paid to their predecessors. Perhaps people outside do not always realise that in this House respect does not stay on one side only, and we wish well to their two predecessors, Niall MacDermot and Frederic Harris.
Over the last two years, as Minister under my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I had responsibility for the implementation of our arms sales policy. I tried to approach this difficult task with what, I hope, was humility, being conscious of our rôle and our responsibility to preserve world peace. Decisions in these matters are not easy. I sympathise with the Government. The two easy courses are either to refuse all arms or to allow all arms. The middle path is fraught with difficulty. One has to look at countries, at intentions, and at weapon systems.
All I can say is that we took our responsibilities very seriously, and I am not ashamed of what we did when we were stewards in this sphere. But I am ashamed of the path which the Government are now treading. They were irresponsible in opposition. In opposition, the Foreign Secretary made categorical statements of the Conservatives' intention, if they came back to power, to revert to the rôle of arms salesmen to South Africa. When he made his tour of South Africa in March, as chairman of the Conservative Party, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Conservatives would revert to their former policy, and on this matter he said, "The South African Minister of Defence and I are at one". Tonight, the chickens are coming home to roost.
It was odd that on 23rd June all the Fleet Street editors, one after another, proclaimed to the outside world that the Government were about to sell arms to South Africa. This, apparently, was the clear and bold policy of the resolute Government we now have. It was odd that they all announced it on one day. On Monday, I detected in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, at his foggiest, some difference in approach. Perhaps the most charitable interpretation I can give to what he said is that he was covering his tracks, or, at worst, trying to evade a decision, trying to avoid announcing to

the House before it went into recess what the Government's real intentions were.
To this moment, even after the exchange earlier this afternoon, I cannot understand the difference in semantics between, first, the intention of the Government and, second, the statement that no final decision has been taken. I hope that whoever is to wind up will resolve the matter once and for all, explaining to the House in simple terms what is the difference between intention, on the one hand, and the fact that no decision has been taken on the other.
Will the Government tell us what instructions have been given to the head of defence sales in the Ministry of Defence? How many salesmen have gone to South Africa with the blessing of the Ministry of Defence? Whoever goes there, whether from a private company or a Government establishment, must be able to give an assurance that the Royal Navy will yield permission if there is any security embargo or that any question of rights of research and development would be looked at sympathetically. May we be told before the end of the debate, whoever may have gone there or will go there, that nothing will be done in these respects before the House is given specific information.
We are now in 1970, a very different time from 1955 when the Simonstown Agreement was negotiated. There is a world of difference in the measure of provocation which either policy will create between resuming arms sales after a break and merely continuing them.
When we asked the Foreign Secretary on Monday what the Government's attitude would be if the matter once again came before the United Nations and it was sought to make the Security Council resolution mandatory, he said that no British Government could tell the House in advance what their policy would be on the question of the veto. There must be dozens of cases on which 90 per cent. of hon. Members would be able to say categorically what their view would be, and there must be others on which there would be doubt. But in this case there should be no doubt. The Government ought to have thought out their policy and determined what their view would be when the matter came up, as inevitably


it would, for further discussion and resolution at the United Nations.
Hon. Members have sought to distinguish between arms which would be used for maritime defence and arms used for internal repression. One cannot nowadays distinguish arms in that way and put labels on them. It can be said that the Nimrod comes under the maritime defence formula enunciated by the Foreign Secretary. I concede at once that the primary rôle of that great aircraft is maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine missions using torpedos and depth charges. But conventional bombs also can be carried, and so can missiles. The bomb bay can be brought into use as a freight bay, and seating can be provided so that as many as 54 troops can be carried. With the immense amount of technology in that aircraft, what a wonderful command centre it could be for a far larger number of other aircraft used to contain subversion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The right hon. Gentleman is making a case which does not stand up to close examination. Driving the case as far as he is now driving it, even the lorries, buses and motor cars freely sold to the South African Government by his Administration could be used for moving troops for internal security operations.

Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will not divert me from my speech, which deals solely with arms. The whole issue of trade is a matter which will have to be settled in the comity of nations.
The Government are seeking to fly in the face of the resolution, of world opinion, and to take part in a trade that the previous Governments denied themselves. It is useless to say that the frigates could not be used for other than maritime purposes. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows from his own experience, frigates could be used to bombard, to blockade. South Africa is in a state of siege. It may well want to use those weapons if it is to maintain the status quo.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: Not at this hour.
The South African defence forces are prepared for both conventional and un

conventional attacks. They do not mean exactly what we mean by "conventional" and "unconventional". Their Defence White Paper of 1969 says:
Although an unconventional threat already exists in the form of terrorism, the possibility of a conventional attack is not excluded. The organisation, training and equipment programmes of both the Army and the Air Force are accordingly guided and developed alone those lines.
When someone tries to distinguish between arms for defence and arms for repression, he should bear in mind what the White Paper says. It continues:
The Army, in particular, indeed already has considerable ability to counter both a conventional and an unconventional attack. The diversity in training and the flexibility in organisational set-up are such that a changeover from the conventional to the unconventional role, and vice versa, can easily be carried out.
That is the policy of the South African Government contained in their last Defence White Paper.
South Africa today is trying to bring us into as close a political association with it as possible. The Government have tried to frighten us today with references to 300 Russian submarines and more. That has been done since the time of Macmillan. Is it the considered view of the military strategists that we could have the resources to engage in war, albeit a defensive war, right around the coast of Africa? This is the philosophy of an earlier age, a philosophy of the pre-nuclear age. It is more akin to gunboats and the thin red line. It is exemplified perhaps by the recent words of the Foreign Secretary on the need to show the flag in the traditional way of a great naval Power.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I said this in relation to the Soviet Union Navy, not ours.

Mr. Morris: I am sorry if I did the right hon. Gentleman an injustice. Judging from his love of trying to revert to the rôle of world policemen, I thought that that was in accordance with his expressions today.
South Africa today is in a state of siege, trying to hold back not the Russians but black Africa. South Africa is rearming. In the decade since 1960–61 the permanent force has gone up by 65 per cent. and the citizens' force has


increased six-fold. The commando establishment has gone up 18 per cent. Fully mobilised, their forces number 85,000 troops. The only coloured element that I can find is the coloured corps of 622 people and an unknown number of sailors.
Everyone who has worked with the military knows the importance military men attach to having the latest and most sophisticated weapons. If the South Africans are to continue their policy of rearming and recruiting they must ensure that their troops have a change from the less sophisticated tasks of repression. That is one of the real reasons why they want to give their troops some of the best weapons developed in the world today.
We have had talk today about the need to honour the Simonstown Agreement. This country did carry it out, and there is no suggestion today of any breach of that agreement. The ships that were supposed to be built under it were completed by the end of 1963. What the South African Prime Minister is talking about today is not any breach by this country of the agreement but the need to revise it so that his future needs can be catered for. The reality of the problem is not that there is a distinction between repressive and non-repressive weapons, or that there are any breaches of the letter or spirit of the agreement, or even the threat of Russian submarines. The real issue is whether Great Britain is to aid and abet, in the face of world opinion, the massive machinery of a repressive State. South Africa is a vast tinderbox. It is in a state of seige.

Mr. Evelyn King: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman with sympathy. But once it is assumed that we are to have a base in South African waters, surely the moral encouragement already exists and whether in addition we supply a ship or two is irrelevant. We have the base.

Mr. Morris: It is highly relevant when world opinion in the United Nations has passed a resolution that no country should continue arms sales to South Africa. This country, in the face of world opinion, is about to revert to its former policy. That is what we are talking about. What South Africa seeks to

do is to bring us by our coat-tails as near as possible to its policy.
South Africa is fighting for survival, and I am as sure as I am standing here today that, difficult as it may be to visualise, sooner rather than later there will be conflict in South Africa. It will be our responsibility to ensure that our hands are clean, that we have done nothing to further apartheid in South Africa today. If we do, we shall run the grave risk of breaking up the free Commonwealth of nations, created from an empire, of which we are so proud.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I hope that the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will forgive me if I do not follow too closely the points he made. I intend to deal with his case in general terms rather than particular.
There is general concern about the spectacle of frigates lobbing shells at Africa. I recall the remark of a diarist travelling back from India 150 years ago whose ship passed a French frigate doing exactly that, and he reflected in his diary on the utter futility of a frigate assaulting a continent.
This is a serious matter. Before I move on to the points to which I wish to draw attention, I should like to refer to one exchange this afternoon, on the question of uranium, because it seemed to me that there was some confusion about the matter. First, uranium is found in the greatest quantities on the Witwatersrand and it is produced by refining the tailings produced after gold has been refined. Special plants and special and expensive processes are required for this. The House should not lose sight of the fact that South Africa is one of the world's largest sources of uranium. As a strategic supplier of uranium I believe that it has no equal.
The former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said this afternoon that N.A.T.O. thought that this was very unimportant. I find that very difficult to reconcile with one fact. Not only is Southern Africa probably the world's major source of uranium, but it is probably the source of the world's major supplies of most strategic minerals. How can we ignore this in considering the question before us?
No one is more conscious than I am that the questions raised are fundamental. Part of me stands within the House constitutionally and properly defending the interests of my constituents and representing their views. At the end of the day, as many hon. Members have argued, it is the views of Great Britain that must prevail. But part of me inevitably and inescapably, as I spent much of my life in South Africa, stands this evening at the Bar of the House. I am a product of that inescapable and compelling influence that has had so much effect on all who have lived in Africa and have tried in some way to come to terms with the uniquely difficult problems of that sub-continent.
At the Bar I stand, as so many hon. Members do, embarrassed and defensive, sharing the disapproval common to us all and yet unable to condemn in the extreme terms so popular in this day and age. I can well understand the reluctance of many hon. Members to endorse a policy which seems to them to have so many complicating factors, but we must also clear our perspective in this matter, because our perspective may be dangerously short.
As I understand the situation, Britain and South Africa share a fundamental common interest. This common interest has survived—and this may not be unimportant—the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, the onset of apartheid, which we all dislike, and South Africa's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. I do not think that our interests are merely interests of investment and trade. I believe that our fundamental interest arises from this inescapable fact, that in South Africa there are nearly two million people who share a common stock in this country, and many who were born here.
It is not bases or defence, vitally important though these are, but this key matter which concerns us, for a total and final failure in South Africa would be a catastrophe of extraordinary proportions and the repercussions of such a failure would travel around the world, as did those from Sarajevo and Danzig. I do not think that the House, the country, or Western Europe, can take towards Southern Africa, as many hon. Members

would have us take, the attitude of Pontius Pilate.
The dilemma is that we all hope for a modification of what is happening there, but we cannot interfere. We all understand why external threats occur, but we cannot condone the use of force, either externally or internally. We all appreciate that Southern Africa is probably the most vulnerable pressure point in the Western world, but ideologies pass on. With new vision and new leadership—and who is to say that these will never occur in South Africa—South Africa could yet confound its critics.
If we supply strategic arms, we make a great act of faith. We shall certainly further our narrow interests, and none of us would deny this. We shall certainly discourage the assumption, which some Powers may be tempted to make, that the Cape of Good Hope and Simonstown—and, after all, it is all the ports of South Africa rather than just Simonstown which are at the centre of this—will fall into their laps like a ripe plum, and that discouragement is worth giving.
Most important, we would be making an investment in hope. We are making an investment in hope that doctrines will wither on the branch, that power will ultimately be diffused, that economic opportunity will broaden, that the economic powerhouse which is South Africa will ultimately develop and share its full potential in the service of all the peoples of Africa and that it will not remain the exclusive possession, which it may now be thought to be, of the present South African Administration.
I understand the doubts of hon. Members and the belief that we cannot attain a clear and a defensible objective. This is true, but unavoidable. The real issue is the future of not merely three million, but 20 million people of South Africa and many to the north who perhaps ought to depend more on South Africa because of the special circumstances which exist.
If this problem is to be resolved, it must be the hope of the House that it will be resolved neither under the auspices of apartheid nor under the auspices of Communism. It should be our aim to drive resolutely through the middle of this Scylla and Charybdis. It must be our hope that progress on the sub-continent will be free from the domination of either Communism or apartheid.
I turn to the subject of the use of strategic weapons in defence of South Africa. Here we meet one of the most plausible and at the same time one of the mast fallacious arguments. I give an illustration which I hope will convince the House. What would be the Communist propaganda to describe the invasion of United Kingdom? Would it be described as an invasion of the territorial integrity of this country? I very much doubt it. It is more likely to be described as the unleashing of the people's army on revanchist bourgeois Conservatism. That is the sort of propaganda which is used. If we were to use Buccaneers in the defence of the territorial integrity of this country, we should be defending a monstrous social structure of bourgeois society. These are the semantics of international controversy.
In that sense only could strategic arms be used to defend apartheid. To say that they could be so used is a gross oversimplification, a semantic confusion of a major order. All States are imperfect in the eyes of their ideological opponents, some more imperfect than others, and South Africa is no exception. It is no more possible to defend South Africa without defending apartheid than it is possible to defend the United Kingdom without at the same time defending the British Communist Party.
I do not believe that we should look solely at this scenario, because many hon. Members in the debate have argued that they are concerned about the scenario of internal revolt and revolution, believing that there must be internal failure supressed by strategic weapons. This argument is wholly untenable, because its premise is that apartheid is some physical citadel rather like the Bavarian redoubt to which Hitler was supposed to retreat at the end of the Second World War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Its bastions exist in the minds of men. It is a wasteland of social neuroses, it is an amalgam of political, social and economic custom created over three centuries and given legislative form only in the year 1947.
It has an enormous Achilles heel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) pointed out in a brilliant speech. Its Achilles heel is that of economic interdependence which

will ultimately prove to be its downfall. Its enforcement has produced some of the more undesirable features of the police State and no one disputes this, but doctrines exist in the minds of men and that is where they can and must be destroyed, there and nowhere else.
The arguments, which will be profound and deep, may strain civil order, but it will not be strategic weapons but small arms and discipline which will restore order, for one side or the other. Any South African Government which used Buccaneers—never mind about naval vessels, because they are irrelevant—or Mirages—and I remind the House that there are several squadrons of Mirages in South Africa already—to restore internal order would be as likely to survive, even within the limited democratic system of that country, as a British Government which used Buccaneers in Belfast.
What are the essential facts? They are that integration and interdependence of the African and European in industry, in agriculture, in transport, in mining, in distribution, and even in the police are fundamental in South Africa. That is the reason why the whole doctrine, policy and philosophy of apartheid collapse when subjected to rigorous analysis. It ignores the facts.
What then happens? The right hand of economic reality must be allowed to function without knowing or caring too much about what the left hand of politics in South Africa is doing. Many would recognise that that is a situation not unknown in other countries. If the left hand here used a bayonet, the right hand would be impaled. It would be a classic case of a self-defeating philosophy.
Let us for a moment accept the premise of internal revolt. Let us assume that some profound disturbance produced a complete polarisation along lines of colour, as happened to some extent on lines of religion in India in 1947. As I see it, in those circumstances, the most extreme that can be envisaged, the European in South Africa would face three alternatives. First, integration on the terms of the majority; second, retreat into some form of enclave; and third some form of emigration—a situation not all that different from Algeria. All would involve the complete destruction of apartheid and the loss of the South African State.
If the Europeans were to accept the first alternative, there would hardly be any point in using strategic arms to destroy life or property. Retreat to an enclave would presumably follow revolt in which arms used would depend on arms in the hands of the revolutionaries, and the Europeans would fall back to the cities. Only in the third case, the most extreme of extreme solutions, do I see a possibility that strategic arms, or anthing approaching them, would be used.
Even in these circumstances, would South Africa depend on Western arms? Only, I suggest, if internal revolt were inspired and aided by massive external intervention. I do not believe that this last extremity of the most extreme case could occur unless something of the order of 30 modern, sophisticated divisions were ranged against South Africa, which as we all know, is most unlikely to happen.
Let us consider South Africa's present availability of arms, which is considerable; her industrial potential, which should be well known in this House because we have considerable knowledge about it; and her scientific skill. Yesterday's Press contained an announcement of a new process involving the extraction of enriched uranium in South Africa. Possibly the report is not true, but the chances are that it is true. The House would be wise to assume this scientific skill and it must be remembered that Sir Basil Schonland, former Director of Harwell, was a South African. South Africa has not depended on the outside world for small arms of the type that would have been involved in civil problems since the end of the First World War.
I turn to the external scene. There are two very important questions. First, does a threat to the trade routes exist? Second, will the reinforcement of South African arms do more harm than good to British interests as broadly defined?
Three arguments are used which I should like to consider. The first is that no limited war is likely. This argument was developed with great skill by a noble Lord in another place. He said that the threat would only arise if there were a major confrontation with N.A.T.O. I do not accept this. I do

not believe that the Communist world is so foolish. The Communist world has demonstrated in the last few years that it is the master of Salami tactics or the SAM 3 system. This involves a few missiles, ships or submarines in the right place at the right time.
The Communist world is not likely to force the West into a position where it is forced to retreat or escalate. I do not believe that this is likely to happen in the South Atlantic. The Communist world recognises and will exploit the embarrassment of the free world which it senses and well understands in its relations with South Africa. The Communist world will exacerbate that embarrassment if given an opportunity to do so, and this is a consideration we cannot neglect.
It has been said that our present policy suffers from an excess of pre-nuclear fantasy. I wonder what this means. The noble Lord who used that phrase in another place made a categorical assertion that the next war will not be a naval war in the South Atlantic and that the supply of strategic arms would be pointless. How does he know? How do I know? I am not privy to the secret plans of the Russian chiefs of staff. But I would make the assumption that if I were able to see the naval and military assessments made by our own chiefs of staff I would be very surprised if one of their conclusions was that there was no likelihood whatever of a limited war of naval attrition in the South Atlantic in particular circumstances.
Let us deal with the tactical argument that Simonstown is useful but not essential. It is not just Simonstown but all the ports in southern Africa which would be vital to us in time of war. Perhaps the House would reflect on this point. If a serious confrontation broke out and if the Panama Canal were blocked, trade between Britain, Western Europe and Australasia, the Far East and the Middle East would have to go via the Horn. [Interruption.] I would gladly give way to any hon. Gentleman who suggests that this is not the case.
What alternative is there? The Power that controls the Cape controls the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean and this is the real factor which we cannot neglect in making up our minds tonight.
Then there is the "adding insult to injury" argument, that we offend Africa and Asia and endanger the Commonwealth and British trade if we make this decision. The policy, we are told—the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said this—reveals where Britain stands in the great confrontation between rich and poor, between white and coloured, between the oppressors and the oppressed. There is always the implication, and it is a very interesting one, that there is a complete overlap between those three groups, that the rich and the white and the oppressors on the one hand and the poor and the coloured and the oppressed on the other are the same groups of people.
I do not believe this, and the evidence which comes in one's daily newspaper every day of one's life provides ample evidence that this overlap is far from complete or true. But I reject utterly the view that by this one criterion the long and proud record of British foreign policy stands or falls. This cannot be sustained.
In any case, will these consequences flow? Will the non-aligned world reject British aid hereafter? Will it spurn British goods if they are cheaper and better value than any others? Will it refuse British loans when no others are being granted? Will it condemn the whole British way of life because we have partly aligned ourselves for specific purposes with those whose way of life is generally disapproved? I do not believe that this case can be sustained, but even if they did, I believe that we should pay this price rather than jeopardise the vital security of the West. If this final option is closed, no other options remain open.
My conclusions are these. We must be much franker and less conscience-stricken in this House. The world is littered with the debris of civilisations which have failed to live up to their own ideals. If we are now to be asked to live up to the ideals imposed on us by others, the mortality rate of civilisations and of countries will certainly rise. Certainly, South Africa may today be beyond the pale, but criteria change. Who will be beyond the pale tomorrow? I have heard it suggested tonight that we ourselves may be beyond the pale. The

criteria by which this is said should be carefully criticised.
I would make two constructive suggestions. One is to the Foreign Secretary and one to the South African Government. My first suggestion is based on personal experience of co-operation between the Royal and South African Air Forces during the Second World War. If the contingency against which we are now planning should occur, we could have to do it again. Why not establish joint South African Air Force-R.A.F. maritime reconnaissance squadrons answerable to a new organisation, a South Atlantic Treaty Organisation, controlled by a joint British-South African staff? The United Kingdom would then in effect have a veto over any remote possibility of misuse.
I cannot see that there would be any difficulty about defining precisely the conditions under which such arms should be used. To the South African Government, I would say, "Do not misinterpret the proposal: it is not an attempt to assert a form of vestigial imperial authority in South Africa."
But my second suggestion is more important. It is high time that the people and present Government of South Africa produced some great act of political imagination. There is a long-standing confusion between political pretence and reality, which is deep and damaging, not merely to them but to the whole West. Time is not on her side or on ours. The credit for real achievement in that part of the world sinks beneath the weight of opprobrium created by the obstinate profession of inept doctrine.
There is a greater commonwealth, within which the United Kingdom must strive to remain, as so many hon. Members have stressed. There is a greater commonwealth to which South Africa must strive to return. That commonwealth was described by a very great man, a member of the Milner Kindergarten, Lionel Curtis, in his great book, "Civitas Dei". It is time that South Africa allowed herself once again to be influenced and guided by a vision and a sense of obligation comparable to that possessed by that great South African, the father of the League of Nations, who stands, looking into the future, in Parliament Square.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) in his directions and perambulations. His opinion of the Commonwealth and mine are completely different and his verdict and mine are equally different, perhaps because I spent more time in black Africa and he spent more time with his friends in Rhodesia and South Africa.
The central problem facing any Government is to try to get the balance between one's principles and serving the interests of one's country, what is desirable and what is right. When we talk about policies on southern Africa, I believe that we have endeavoured to maintain this balance there. Equally, I believe that if the Government proceed with their proposed action, they will create a dangerous imbalance.
Three sets of interests seem to me to be involved. Great play has been made about the defence of the realm. I shall not enter into detail on this, because time is short and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in winding up the debate from this side of the House will do so, save to mention one thing. If the Cape route is of such tremendous importance, one is entitled to ask why during the last six years when the Government were in Opposition they never chose a Supply Day to debate this, what is now to them, vital issue. Certainly, we had the annual debate on the Navy Estimates and right hon. and hon. Members raised this issue, but I cannot recall one Supply Day asked for by the then Opposition during those six years to debate this vital question which is suddenly so important to them. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend speaks, he will deal with these strategic considerations.
The second area of interest is the economic field. Whatever may be said about our decisions to refuse to supply arms, our trade with South Africa and her trade with us has not decreased but has increased over the last four or five years. Equally, on the other side of the coin our trade with the rest of Africa is much greater than with South Africa and is increasing. Any adverse decision

could well place in greater jeopardy our trade with Africa other than South Africa.
The third dimension of consideration is our political interests. I happen to believe that Britain can play, and has played, an effective rôle as a bridge over the race barrier and over the poverty barrier. I happen to believe that no other country of the West can do this. It still remains true that many countries in Africa and in Asia, whether they were former British Colonies or not, still regard Britain as essentially decent, honest and tolerant. That regard is not expressed in terms of Russia, the United States or France. A decision to sell arms to South Africa could squander that reputation.
It is no surprise to me that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, in speaking from the Box this afternoon, complained that the answer was not to break up the Commonwealth. This is the crux of the decisions which have to be taken by the Government, and they may well be surprised at the way in which there has been reaction from Commonwealth countries. If the reaction has been strong, it is because the feeling of being let down is so great. It is because there are people who believe that Britain values the Commonwealth and would, therefore, not do anything to take away from the Commonwealth its uniqueness.
One must refer here to a fact which was seen in 1961, and those who were around at the time will be aware of it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was intimately concerned with it. I refer to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, where South Africa discovered that its policies were incompatible with its membership of the Commonwealth. That was when one saw clearly and vividly the views expressed by Nyerere and others that the question of race and racism was something that the Commonwealth would need to deal with and that the nations of the world would need to stand up and be counted. We should not be surprised, therefore, if there is a speedy, immediate response, possibly emotional, from those who feel that this is an act by this Government which is endangering the very essence of the Commonwealth. This is why they have reacted in the way in which they have done.
This feeling may well be expressed not merely in terms of concern or apprehension. They may well be willing to make the major sacrifice of reducing their economic links with this country. There are areas of black Africa which are part of this equation, which the Government have still to conclude; there are areas of black Africa and North Africa where our economic interests are considerable. I take Nigeria and Libya in terms of oil, Zambia in terms of copper; we can take many other countries in terms of their primary produce. Of course it will cost them, but it is a cost which they may well be willing to pay for what to them is a non-negotiable principle.
From my last two years as a Minister in the Government and dealing with Africa, I can testify to the depth of feeling and intensity of feeling on this subject. For Africa this is the most important international question, and if the Government in doing their calculations fail to give weight to this feeling they will be reversing the whole policy of this nation and its rôle in the world.
Africa has itself tried to grapple with the problems of southern Africa. African countries have produced a set of solutions to the problems, and anybody acquainted with them would conclude them to be wise and objective. I refer to the Lusaka Manifesto subscribed to by all African leaders and endorsed at the United Nations without formal dissent. The House should remember, too, that what the African nations of the Commonwealth are asking for is not a boycott of South Africa. They are not asking for armed intervention in South Africa. They are simply asking the British Government not to sell to South Africa weapons which can be used against their countries or against the African majority in South Africa. This is a reasonable request to a country which takes pride in being a leading member of a multiracial commonwealth of nations.
In conclusion, I would say that I just do not understand why it was necessary to introduce these proposals in such haste. In the first instance, there is no reference in the Conservative manifesto to this question. Over the last three weeks Ministers have been saying, "We need time to look at things, to consider and to report." I understand that; it is part of

the game; one does need time. So why rush in in an issue like this? Why aggravate one's friends? Why, then, react when they react emotionally?
I would urge the Government to look again at their policy, to heed and to try to quantify the importance of the Commonwealth, to understand what this looks like in the eyes of African leaders in relation to the problems of race, to consider which side we are on, and to look to the great potential there is for this country in giving a lead to the world in overcoming the barriers of race and the barriers of poverty. I hope that, in doing so, they will heed our Motion. They may ignore it this evening, but let it be part of the reflections which they will make. No one will be more delighted than I if they come back and say, "We have decided to accede to the Commonwealth, to the United Nations, and to stay in the world of those who have their self-respect."

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: As the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) knows, I respect him very much and his invaluable personal contacts and friendships in black Africa. I would dearly love to follow him in his speech, with much of which I agree, but I must not because the winding-up speeches must start at 9 o'clock. I had intended to say something about trade, which has been a good deal discussed today, but, to shorten my speech, I think it is probably fair to say that I do not think the real argument is about trade.
Our balance of trade with South Africa is slightly in her favour and our trade with black Africa is as great as, and growing faster than, our trade with South Africa. I do not think that the argument is even about apartheid. We all dislike that system intensely, and no one is suggesting that we should sell to South Africa arms which could be used against the African people. I think that the argument today is essentially about defence—perhaps more on my side of the House—and the effect on the new Commonwealth of our defence policy, and it is this theme which I wish to pursue.
There is a good deal to be said for the Government's defence policy as a maritime defence policy per se; it has been well said by my hon. Friends and I


will not repeat it. It was well said in an article in the Sunday Telegraph by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish). I agree with the paints he made, but there were some omissions in the argument. A naval base in Simonstown is very important to us for our Far East strategy, but so are over-flying rights in central Africa, and these might be seriously prejudiced if we sell arms to South Africa. That was one omission from an otherwise good analysis.
Even more serious are the political and defence risks of souring the African States north of the Zambesi to the point where they might allow Russia or China to establish bases in their countries. Tanzania and Zambia are already accepting Chinese help in building the Tan-Zam railway. I thought that the last Government were very short-sighted in failing to organise a Western consortium to build this much-needed and much-wanted rail link to the sea.
We must realise that African States, and Zambia especially, have very real fears for their national security from South Africa. I believe that these fears are groundless, but they are certainly genuine. We think and talk, naturally and rightly, of our security and we should not blame these countries for thinking of of their security. I think that many hon. Members do not fully appreciate that President Kaunda has long believed that a racial war in Africa is almost inevitable in the long term, not perhaps in his lifetime but certainly in his children's lifetime. He has often told me this. I hope that he is wrong, but he believes it. And if African leaders believe that that is the likely outcome, and if they see Britain supplying to South Africa arms which they fear may in future be used against their own countries, we should not be altogether surprised that they think this would align us on what, from their point of view, is the wrong side, the side of white South Africa, against the rest of Africa south of the Sahara. We should not be surprised in those circumstances if they turn elsewhere for help, perhaps to the Eastern bloc.
There are grave dangers too that first Tanzania, then Zambia, then perhaps Uganda and Kenya, and possibly even

India and Ceylon, might decide to leave the Commonwealth. I think that they would be quite wrong to do so, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said in his speech: but they might make that decision. I know that a few of my hon. Friends would shed no tears if that happened. They regard the new Commonwealth countries as at best unreliable friends, at worst almost as enemies. I do not take that view. I think it would be a sad day and a betrayal of our fine record of de-colonisation and in evolving a Commonwealth out of an empire if the Tory Party of all parties were to preside over the dissolution of the Commonwealth. That would indeed be a sad way to pay tribute to Iain Macleod, whose Colonial Secretaryship was perhaps the most important and significant achievement of Mr. Macmillan's Government. Rather than even risk that I would sooner not supply arms to South Africa at all.
But I do not think that it need come to that. Our policy is, after all, only the same policy that we pursued up to 1964. I fully acknowledge that it is one thing to continue an existing policy and another to resuscitate a policy that was abandoned six years ago. The world changes, and world opinion changes. But provided we supply only frigates and submarines; provided we give the policy time to evolve and take the time and trouble—it is a great mistake to try to do this in a hurry—to explain our policy to our Commonwealth partners, they may accept it in the same good faith with which I am sure we are pursuing it—simply as a measure of defence for our own maritime security, which is the only point of the policy from our point of view.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is taking time to consult the Commonwealth because we cannot force this policy on the Commonwealth without risking destroying the Commonwealth in the process. We must win acceptance for the policy. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) accused my right hon. Friend of semantics, and asked what was the difference between our "intention", which we have never disguised, and our "final decision", which has not yet been taken. I must not speak for my right hon. Friend; he can speak


for himself. But Commonwealth consultation, and the outcome of that consultation, is the difference between intention and final decision. At any rate, I hope so.
If that is so, it is an important difference, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right to make it, if that is what he meant by it. If, after the Division tonight, hon. and right hon. Members opposite will accept the fact of our policy, we have the task of explaining to the African Commonwealth that our policy is not aimed at supporting apartheid or supporting South Africa against black Africa—the task of explaining to them that it is aimed simply and solely at securing our own sea lanes round the Cape. We must explain this because we are entitled to decide our own policy in relation to our own defence needs, and I believe that this is acknowledged in the Commonwealth. We must explain it, because if we do not, there is a real danger of the break-up of the new Commonwealth.
But we should not submit to a form of blackmail. After all, we fought the General Election a month ago on the policy of supplying strategic arms to South Africa. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree with it. They thought that it was a terrible policy with which to fight an election. But we fought the election on that policy and we should not now be expected to change it. But many of us can and do ask my right hon. Friend to interpret the policy in the most restrained and statesmanlike way, and give himself plenty of time to work it out. I have complete faith in my right hon. Friend's ability to do so, and for that reason I shall not hesitate to vote in the Government Lobby tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: In the main this has been a very serious debate, in which the quality of the contribution by hon. Members on both sides of the House has been very high, none higher than that of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) with 80 per cent.—he will not be surprised about the missing 20 per cent.—of whose speech I wholly agreed. I shall return to one or two of his points later.
The debate was also distinguished by four exceptionally well-informed and

thoughtful maiden speeches, to one or two of which I shall also refer later.
There is no doubt that this question of the possible supply of arms to South Africa arouses deep and sincere feelings on both sides, and inevitably, on occasions during the debate, this has led to a slightly higher decibel rating than is normal. I shall try to keep the temperature down, because I take seriously, and I hope that I interpreted it rightly, what was said by the Foreign Secretary on Monday and by the Prime Minister again yesterday; namely, that whatever they may have said or done in the recent past, today we are discussing an intention and not a decision, and that the present intention of the Government can be changed or deflected by argument—argument with the Commonwealth, is what the Foreign Secretary said on Monday, but I would hope that the arguments put in the House today could also have some effect on the Government's final decision.
I should like, if I may, to concentrate the first part of my speech on the strategic arguments on which the Government undoubtedly—I do not think that I am falsifying their position—base their case for changing the policy of the previous Administration, and I will try in the course of it to deal with some of the questions asked earlier in the debate by the Foreign Secretary.
First of all, let me say a word or two on the importance of the Simonstown base. It is not, in fact, important any more to Britain as a base, as one hon. Member opposite pointed out earlier. We have certain facilities in Simonstown which are useful, but not vital. They include a communication facility for keeping in touch with our ships in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean; refuelling facilities for our ships, with the possibility of refitting if that is ever necessary, and some rest and recreation facilities which are very welcome to sailors, particularly those on leave from the Beira Patrol.
But none of those facilities can conceivably be described as vital to Britain, and their utility is steadily diminishing with the decrease of British military activities in the Indian Ocean east of Suez—a decrease which, as I understand it, whatever they do in the Gulf and in South-East Asia, the present Government propose to continue, because they have


said very clearly that they do not propose to maintain anything like the present number of forces in Singapore-Malaysia.
The communications facility will almost totally lose its relevance to Britain with the introduction of the Skynet satellite communications system launched a few months ago. Incidentally, the House should know that this system will also affect the utility of the communications facility in Mauritius, which has been grossly overplayed in some recent Press articles.
These facilities in South Africa are useful to Britain, and as Secretary of State for Defence I have often said so, but they are not vital and are of diminishing utility and, as the hon. Member for Surbiton very rightly pointed out, they are, broadly speaking, no more important to us than the very important facilities which we have in the African States North of the Zambesi. If I may say so, I have flown on more than one occasion across black Africa, staging at Nairobi and Mauritius, to Australia and the Far East, but I have never found it necessary to go through South Africa—

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: With respect, no. I must proceed a little further before I start giving way.
In return for these facilities, Britain accepted certain obligations in the Simonstown Agreement, all of which she has fulfilled, and which she was recognised as having fulfilled by the South African Government when the last Administration decided to maintain a total embargo on arms supplies. The first hint that there might be something in what was called the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement which was not being fulfilled came in one or two speeches by South African Ministers last year, and I understand that the same point has recently been made to the present Administration. The South African Government cannot claim—and I cannot recall them ever having claimed—that there is anything in the letter of the Simonstown Agreement which has not been fulfilled.
The limited and useful defence relationship between Britain and South Africa was accepted as reasonable not only by

the South African Government, but by the black African countries, too. Indeed, it is important to notice that when Dr. Mungai, the Kenya Defence Minister, made a violent attack on the present Government's proposals, as he thought, to resume arms supplies to South Africa a few days ago he specifically said that the sort of defence relationship which the previous Government had had was recognised as reasonable as a British interest in the circumstances.
That relationship included, as we have always said to the House, the supply of practice ammunition, certain spares, and, very occasionally, naval exercises on a very small scale, which again have been described to the House. Indeed, the current naval exercise was described in a letter published in The Guardian only a few months ago. There has never been any secrecy about this. We have had certain facilities of limited value, and we have paid for them by certain types of co-operation.
What is now being proposed by the new Government is a complete reversal of the policy of the previous Government and the delivery of a range of military equipment which is held by the world, and was held by the previous Government to be barred specifically by the United Nations resolution. Here again I agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton. Continuing a policy is one thing. Reversing a policy is another, and the world has changed a great deal in the six years since the Conservative Party was last in power.
The reason given for reversing the policy is that there is an urgent and growing threat to the security of the sea routes round the Cape. This is what was stressed by the Foreign Secretary in what I found to be rather disturbing parts of his speech this afternoon, because the sort of fears, indeed nightmares, described by the right hon. Gentleman have never been put to me by my military advisers. They are not fears and nightmares shared by any of our allies whose interest in the security of these routes is as great as our own. Indeed, I think that they represent an extremely unbalanced and, if I may say so, ill-informed view of the facts.
But even if it were true that there was an imminent and growing threat to


security of the route round the Cape, the conclusion that this is best met by the supply of military equipment to South Africa is the opposite of the case as I shall seek now to show. First, on the question of the threat, there is no doubt about an increase of Soviet naval activity in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. The best assessment which I have been able to make is that this is related partly to the Soviet interest in the Chinese threat in Southern Asia, but there is no doubt—and this is a universal view among defence experts in the Western world—that the main Soviet interest in this activity is political and not military. It is to show the flag, in the same way as the British Fleet has so often shown the flag in the past—[Interruption.]—I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will disagree with me, but I think that I have not only the right, but the duty, to draw on my experience as a Defence Minister for the last six years to give what I believe to be the military facts of the situation.
If there were a military threat, if the nightmares of the Foreign Secretary were justified and these 300 submarines of the Soviet Union concentrated round the Cape and began to sink shipping, that would be a problem which could not conceivably be met either by South Africa alone or by South Africa in combination with the United Kingdom. Nobody has begun to explain how it would be possible.
In any case, why should it be, because only 10 per cent. of the shipping which goes around the Cape is British, and only 5 per cent. of British shipping in dry goods goes around the Cape, although, as long as the Suez Canal is closed, and even after, now that we have developed big tankers, there will be a substantial part of European and British oil going that way. But if there were this type of interference with shipping, this would be and would have to be a matter for the whole of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and none of them, of course, shares the Foreign Secretary's view on this.
But if N.A.T.O. did worry about the threat and took it seriously, there is no reason to believe that it would meet it by deploying ships around the Cape Why should it? Indeed, with great

respect, I hope that the Foreign Secretary will consult his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence on this. The idea that, if it makes sense to build up one's naval forces in the Mediterranean, one should therefore build them up in every part of the oceans of the world is utter nonsense. If there were this type of threat to Western shipping around the Cape, probably the right way to meet it would be in the Baltic, in the North Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, and not in the Cape area at all.
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is as well aware as I am that, in building up a very large Soviet mercantile marine, the Soviet Union has provided the West with a hostage which is a very strong disincentive to any Soviet interference of this nature with Western shipping, except in total war. But in total war, what happened around the Cape would be totally irrelevant. This problem would be met by different means altogether.

Mr. Peter Trew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Second World War, when we had this global confrontation that he is envisaging, of 5,150 Allied merchant ships sunk, 559 were sunk in the South Atlantic or the Indian Ocean—one ship in nine—and that if such a threat arose again, it would be vital to deploy naval forces in the South Atlantic?

Mr. Healey: With great respect to the hon. Member, that may be his view, but it is a view which was abandoned by the British Navy under the last Conservative Government. The idea of another Battle of the Atlantic is ruled out by all the N.A.T.O. navies, including the British Navy, for reasons which I should be delighted to explain on another occasion but have not time to explain now.
This is not the problem at all. It may be, although we have no evidence one way or another, that Soviet intentions towards the West in the Indian Ocean area are hostile, but if there is a threat, it is a political one and not a military one, and the targets are the minds of men. The targets are not strips of concrete, docks and harbour installations, although these might follow if the Russians were to win the first battle for the minds of men. With great respect to the Foreign Secretary, it is his total inability to comprehend this


simple fact which disqualifies him for the office he holds in 1970.
When we are talking about the minds of men, which are the only rational targets for Soviet activity in this part of the world, we must try to understand the minds of the men who are the targets. If one thing has been demonstrated again and again in the last 20 years, it is that racial discrimination, and particularly the very vicious and obscene form of it represented by apartheid, is regarded by most coloured peoples throughout the world as a greater evil than Communism. For that reason, for the West or a Western country to appear to align itself with racial discrimination, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Caradon said in another place the other day, is to hand victory in the war that matters to the Communists on a plate.
The Foreign Secretary this afternoon claimed that Malaysia was worried about the Soviet naval build-up in the Indian Ocean. This may be so. I do not know. She was not worried about it in my time. But Malaysia has sent a most direct reply to the Foreign Secretary's telegram, which she has released to the Press, saying that on no account should Britain deliver arms to South Africa. If there is such a threat it is not the view of the Malaysian Government and people that it should be met in this particular way.
Why is this view held universally by the coloured members of the Commonwealth, black, yellow or brown? First, it is because they do not accept that it is possible to establish a distinction between arms for internal and external use. Such a distinction, as I know from my dealings in the Ministry of Defence, is very difficult to draw. One of the most remarkable remarks made by the Secretary of State for Defence in another place the other day was that he could not imagine a frigate being used for internal security. I can tell him and the Minister of State for Defence, who is to wind up this debate, that he will be very lucky if on no occasion in the next 12 months he does not have to use a frigate for an internal security situation in a dependent territory in the Caribbean, because we have had to do it three or four times this year. [Laughter.] In laughing at that hon. Members opposite show their total incapacity to understand the real issues in the world.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) knows very well that if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Healey: I must say to the Foreign Secretary, and I make this point to him most seriously, that if he wishes to persuade the Commonwealth countries of the sincerity of his view that these weapons are to be sold only for external purposes he must make it a condition of sale formally accepted by the South African Government that they will not be used for any purpose of which the British Government do not approve. We on this side of the House were very disturbed at his unwillingness to give that pledge this afternoon.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Mr. Sandys: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) knows equally well that if the right hon. Gentleman at the Box does not give way, he must resume his seat.

Mr. Healey: Perhaps it would help right hon. Members opposite if I warned them that any time taken off my period in this debate by interruption will be added to it at half-past nine.
As the hon. Member for Surbiton said, and I ask hon. Members to accept this as a fact, right or wrong many of the Governments north of the Zambesi believe that South African military power is a direct threat to them. That they believe it is a fact, and it is a fact of very great importance in taking a decision on the matter we are now discussing. I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary agrees with me on that.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey: No I will not.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. and gallant Member must sit down.

Mr. Healey: What of course will happen—

Mr. Sandys: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Healey: What will happen if the Foreign Secretary insists on increasing South African military force in this way is that he will propel the black African countries into what would be a pitiful arms race, but they would look not to Britain but to China and the Soviet Union for their arms. Do not let us ignore this possibility, because it has happened in Tanzania and it has happened up to a point in Nigeria. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for supporting the policy of the former Administration on this matter and preserving a foothold of military influence for Britain in that most important African State. The plain fact is—

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The mere repetition of standing up will not necessarily make the right hon. Gentleman give way. We have had an orderly debate on a serious subject. We must keep it that way.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey: The fact is—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave way again and again in conditions far worse than those obtaining in the debate now. The right hon. Gentleman has not had the guts to give way once.

Mr. Healey: With respect, I have given way once and the Foreign Secretary was not limited by time in the way that I am limited now.
The fact is that if this policy were persisted in we should risk finding the Soviet Union established with military bases in West Africa and East Africa. How the advantages of a build-up in the South African armed forces could possibly outweigh those disadvantages I defy the Foreign Secretary or anybody else to tell me.
So far, I have been talking only about the strategic risks. The economic risks were discussed by my right hon. Friend. We stand to lose more in other parts of Africa and Asia than we could con

ceivably gain in South Africa. Whether India would consider buying naval equipment from Britain if Britain were selling naval equipment to South Africa I would like the Minister of State to tell us when he replies, because he may well have some information on this matter. Again, I do not know what would happen over the supply of copper from Zambia to Britain. There is no doubt that we should run risks there.
The biggest risk of all is a chain reaction which would bring the Commonwealth as a multi-racial organisation crashing in ruins round our heads. No hon. Member opposite can deny that this is a risk. I do not know how real the risk it. It could conceivably be, as the hon. Member for Surbiton said, that very cautious handling of this matter over a period could diminish or reduce or even remove this risk, but if there were a decision in the immediate future by Her Majesty's Government in the sense which they now intend. I think that the risk of bringing the Commonwealth down in ruins is one which no responsible British Government should be prepared to take.
On top of that, there is another risk with which I was frequently faced when I was Secretary of State for Defence. That is the risk to British lives and property in the rest of Africa if this matter continued to be as badly handled as it has been in the last fortnight and there were a massive mob reaction to the situation there.
As I understand it, it is not yet too late to change. The Foreign Secretary confirmed this when I started speaking. I do not know how keen South Africa would be on buying arms from Britain if the Foreign Secretary does as I think he should and imposes as a condition of sale that those arms should not be used for purposes of which Her Majesty's Government do not approve. I do not know how far the South African Government would be prepared to commit themselves without a revision of the Simonstown Agreement.
As my right hon. Friend made very clear this afternoon, no future British Government, certainly not one formed by this party, could consider themselves bound by arrangements which were contrary to our obligations under the United Nations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister


said this of the Commonwealth countries:
… if they wish to adopt other methods I am quite prepared to consider them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1970; Vol. 804, c. 233.]
The reference there is to other methods of consultation. I put it to the Foreign Secretary that there is a clear and obvious method of consultation which should be used, and that is the Prime Ministers' Conference which is planned for next January. If that opportunity is not used, it is very doubtful whether there will be a Prime Ministers' Conference at all.
I do not ask the Government to commit themselves necessarily on this tonight, but I ask them to agree with our Commonwealth friends and partners that this is a matter of such importance to the survival of the Commonwealth as an institution that no decision on it should be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom until that proposal or intention has been fully discussed at a meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
If this debate—and, certainly, the representations from our Commonwealth partners and from our allies—were to lead Her Majesty's Government to such a conclusion, we could regard this debate as having been of critical value to the United Kingdom, to the Commonwealth and to peace in Afro-Asia. But the debate has been useful already as a warning in the whole field of foreign affairs. I do not imagine that the Foreign Secretary is very proud of his speech today or of his speech on Monday. I do not believe that he can be proud of his diplomatic handling of this issue. Whether we agree with his objectives or not, most of us have always respected his experience and his ability in handling international issues, but we cannot respect his handling of this one.
It started with a Press briefing to the effect that a decision had already been taken to supply arms to South Africa, although the matter had not then been discussed by the Cabinet. Indeed, it looked very much like an attempt to bounce his Cabinet colleagues into a decision before the matter could be fully considered. As a result, the South African Government were told of a decision to supply arms, as Mr. Vorster

made clear yesterday. If we are to take seriously the Associated Press report of the message which was sent to Commonwealth Governments, they were informed of a decision to supply; there was no suggestion that their comments were invited or that they were being consulted.
Then the sky fell on the right hon. Gentleman. One member of the Commonwealth after another reared up in outrage. He found himself with scarcely a friend in the world. So now a decision is turned into an intention, and an agreement to inform is turned into an agreement to consult. We can all be profoundly grateful for this progress.
What went wrong was that the Foreign Secretary showed a total failure to enter into the mind of the Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth with whom he was dealing. He made the same mistake as his Government and party made 14 years ago when they showed a total failure to enter into the mind of the Arab countries in the Middle East. What the Conservative Party did in 1956 destroyed in ten days a British position in the Middle East which it had taken 50 years to build, and it created a breach in our relations with members of our alliance in the Western world which took months, and in one case years, to mend. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in the course on which he is presently moving, he will destroy a position for Britain in Africa and Asia which it has taken a century to build.
If the Foreign Secretary personally will not budge, his colleagues must overrule him. Britain is facing a crisis now as serious as the crisis in 1956. There are still people in the Government today—the Prime Minister is one of them—who failed, either through weakness or through loyalty in 1956, to prevent a sick man tormented by obsessive nightmares from dragging Britain into the humiliation of defeat. I hope that they have learned enough in the intervening years not to make the same mistake again.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Balniel): I feel that in one sense I am in more than usually good company, in that this evening four hon. Members have made their maiden speeches, all of which had one thing in common—not a single one of them was


non-controversial. The speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was vigorous and extremely unconventional, but worth listening to. There was the speech of my hon. Friend—a very old friend—the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst), whom I have heard speak many times before, and who made a speech of quite exceptional calibre this evening. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Robert Taylor) was based upon considerable experience of five recent visits to South Africa and was the kind of speech of experience which the House appreciates. There was also the speech of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) showing a wide-ranging understanding of the issues before us. We welcome them all to our debates.
I say that this is good company, because, whilst I do not wish in any way to claim the same indulgence as that to which those hon. Members are entitled, this is my maiden speech from the Government Dispatch Box and also my first speech on a great issue of defence. It is a formidable responsibility for anyone to speak in the House on defence issues on behalf of any British Government of any political persuasion. Although I suspect that neither tonight nor perhaps on other occasions will I be able to command the full support of right hon. and hon. Members, I will always try to fulfil this responsibility to the best of my ability.
In a debate like this we expect arguments to be deployed with considerable vehemence, and this has proved to be the case. Sometimes the rational case which could have been developed has been almost overwhelmed by emotion. I in no way denigrate speeches because they are made with emotion. This is a subject on which strong opinions are held, and, in so far as the debate is concerned with racial policies, I suspect that my own emotional distaste for racialist policies is as strong as that of any hon. Member. It is based on one's concept of society and what is ethical, let alone what is wise or politically or economically sensible. This is not just a personal expression of view, but is a view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and by the Secretary of State

for Defence in another place only the other day, when he said:
We do not condone, nor will we ever condone, racialist policies. On the contrary, we condemn them.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 14th July, 1970; Vol. 311, c. 588.]
But the heart of the debate is not about racialism; it is about defence. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher) that it is of the greatest importance that we explain the issue to all interested Governments. The debate is about the safety of this country, and its safety is involved as much by events in the Middle East, the war in Vietnam or the appearance of a Soviet fleet amongst our shipping routes in the Indian Ocean. We cannot be indifferent to these distant events, which are at least as important as events close to our own shores. Not least of the services rendered by my right hon. Friend today is that he has called attention to a feature of strategy neglected for so long by the late Administration—the situation which pertains in the Indian Ocean.
Of course, our attitudes to apartheid are relevant, and I shall say something about that later on. The views of other countries are also relevant, and must be and are taken into account. But decisions on Britain's defence interests are for the British Government to take, and my first duty is to do what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did in his speech, namely, to try to bring the debate back from the realms of strong emotion to the hard facts of the defence interests of this country.
Our defence interest that we are considering in this debate lies in the free passage of ships in the Indian Ocean and around Southern Africa into the South Atlantic. This is an essential security requirement for Britain, recognised by both the last Administration and by Her Majesty's Government. Some hon. Members have described phrases such as "sea routes around the Cape" or "freedom of the high seas" as anachronistic. Certainly if one is flying in peace from one continent to another phrases of this kind seem to belong to another age. But this makes it all the more important to sweep away any illusions that there may be


in this country or in the world about the importance of the shipping routes around the Cape.
The importance of this shipping route has greatly increased in the last few years since the closing of the Suez Canal. The right hon. Gentleman's figures were out of date. It now handles more than one-quarter by value of all the United Kingdom's sea-borne trade. Apart from the very short shipping routes from Britain to the Continent of Europe, the route around the Cape is by far our busiest traffic artery, and a large part of this trade is oil.
On average, about six fully-laden oil tankers sail round the Cape every day bound for ports not in the United States but in this country and in Western Europe. As an indication of the scale of this shipping, more than 1,000 British merchant ships are using South African ports every year. For instance, the port of Durban in a few years' time will be handling more traffic than the port of Liverpool handles at the moment. [Laughter.] I accept that that statement is platitudinous in present circumstances. The figure underlines the importance of this route. Even if the Suez Canal were reopened, much of this traffic now would be completely unaffected. Many of the ships are too large to use the Canal and they would continue to sail along the Cape route.
It is, therefore, a route which is not only important for our trade but a lifeline which connects this country with our fuel resources, and there must be general agreement in the House about the recognition of the importance of this trade route. What has not been recognised by the Opposition is that not only do we rely on South Africa for the base facilities for our own naval ships which we use in defending these routes for fuelling, maintenance, repairs and communications, but we rely on South Africa's naval partnership for protecting the areas in a war in which both countries were involved.
In practice, the last Administration made considerable use of South Africa's facilities. For instance, naval forces passing to and from the Far East made considerable use of these facilities. The Beira Patrols could not have been sustained

had it not been for the naval base of Simonstown. Last year alone 69 British warships visited South African ports. Last year alone, as in previous years—and not much publicity was given to this—joint British and South African naval exercises were carried out. Next month there will be a further joint exercise.

Dr. David Owen: rose—

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did not give way to one hon. Member and I will not do so.

Dr. Owen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether a right hon. Gentleman who has the Floor gives way is a matter for him.

Lord Balniel: After the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman I have no intention of giving way.

Mr. Ivor Richard: On a point of order. Is it not utterly shameful that a Government Minister when making a quite deliberate criticism of the previous Government's naval policy will not give way to the previous Minister for the Navy?

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of emotion, not a point of order.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) is a man I respect and I will give way to him.

Dr. Owen: The Minister said that it was impossible to retain the Beira Naval Patrol without the full facilities of Simonstown. That is untrue. It would be inconvenient and there are difficulties, but relying on afloat support it would be possible to retain the Beira Patrol without the Simonstown bases. The Minister ought to know enough about the situation to realise that those are the true facts.

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a point with which I find myself in agreement. Next month further joint naval exercises are planned between the British Navy and the South African Navy. They were planned not by the present Administration but by the previous Government. This


fact alone explains the joint responsibility that we share with South Africa for maritime security.
The strategic policy which backs it up was made quite clear by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East when he said
Under the Simonstown Agreement, Her Majesty's Government and the South African Government share responsibilities for maritime security in the South Africa area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 1316.]
It seems to me to be to some extent illogical, and perhaps even hypocritical, to expect South Africa to gear herself to Western, and particularly to British, de-defence interests to help to defend our maritime interests and to refuse her the arms to carry out her share of the responsibility.
It is more illogical, and also more dangerous, because of two developments which have occurred in recent years and to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred. The first is that the former Administration deliberately re-negotiated the arrangements under the Simonstown Agreement so as to place a greater responsibility for maritime security on the shoulders of the South African Government. We share responsibility, but the major share rests now on South Africa's shoulders.
When this Agreement was re-negotiated in 1967 the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy explained it as follows:
One important change … is a change in the command structure" …
Later he went on
As part of this arrangement, the proposal is that the Chief of the South African Navy will take greater responsibility for the South African area in times of war".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1970; Vol. 740, c. 1619.]
In other words, South Africa has now a more important part in the command structure of the Southern Atlantic defence than when we were last in office. The position is that the previous Administration deliberately negotiated with South Africa to take over these defence responsibilities to ease the burden on our own shoulders and then later, in December 1967, refused to allow South Africa to buy from this country the equipment that it needed to carry out these responsibilities. Of course, one result was that they bought elsewhere.

Soon, French-built submarines will be joining the South African Navy.
A number of speakers in the debate opposing the Government's intention to give effect to the Simonstown Agreement said that they understood the basic fact that, were there a decision to sell arms, there would be no sales of arms for enforcement of a policy of apartheid, but then went on to say that they wondered whom the South Africans were expected to defend themselves against. This was the tenor of the right hon. Member's speech. Any arms which would be supplied would be for joint external defence. Their purpose is to provide a general defence capability against any enemy which threatens the sea routes which, as I have explained, are vital to Britain and to Western Europe. This is the overall defensive purpose of the South Atlantic Command, and it brings me to the second development of recent years, the appearance of a Soviet fleet in the Indian Ocean.
We have watched for years Russia's expansionist maritime policy in many areas of the world and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there is often nothing wrong with this: Soviet ships have as much right to sail the high seas as those of any other country, and there is no doubt that they have many reasons which are entirely pacific, or at any rate no more objectionable than showing the flag and influencing countries and people in various areas.
To an extent, they are gaining influence where our military and naval influence has waned. There is much to be said for balancing forces, continuing to show themselves widely across the world to counter these demonstrations. But the expansion of Russian naval activity is not necessarily entirely pacific. N.A.T.O. and the last Administration were deeply concerned that Russia's expansionist policy could prove a serious threat to Western countries which depend on sea communications, because it carries with it, whatever their present intentions, the potential of hostile action.
I am not suggesting for one moment that there is an immediate threat, but it is a matter of common sense to guard against it. Surely one of the principles on which defence should be based is that one should not give a potentially hostile power a soft option. Any power which is building up its naval forces has a


number of options to take at various levels short of war, from minor harassment upwards. It might engage in such activities as my right hon. Friend mentioned, such as the "Pueblo" incident, or it might probe our reactions or try to "raise the ante" in a period of tension. One can certainly in military terms envisage a protracted war at sea when there is no attack on land in the N.A.T.O. area.
Whatever the nature of any action which could be taken, one surely does not want to be faced with a choice of doing nothing or reacting far more violently than the situation warrants. The right hon. Gentleman the former Secretary of State for Defence accepts this principle in a N.A.T.O. context. He has spoken very persuasively in the House about the doctrines of flexible response, but this principle is as applicable in other military fields.
As I have said, we do not regard a Soviet attack of any kind as a serious imminent risk, and it will not be a risk as long as we are properly prepared, but it would be idle to pretend that the penetration of the Soviet Navy into the Mediterranean did not cause considerable concern to N.A.T.O. The allies instantly looked to their defences in the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could blow the Russian Fleet out of the seas in two minutes. The previous Administration restored some of the cuts which they had planned.
The Soviet influence has grown not only in the Mediterranean but in the Middle East and in the Red Sea and has crept around the southern flank of N.A.T.O. The right hon. Gentleman said that N.A.T.O. was not worried. I believe that they will become increasingly worried and will give more attention to this in future. We now have the appearance of Russian naval vessels in the Indian Ocean and their use in the island of Socotra, now administered by the People's Republic of South Yemen.
The level of Russian naval forces varies. It is frequently a cruiser, two destroyers, two submarines and associated vessels. This force is situated right at the heart of Britain's main shipping route from the Gulf and from the Far East. Theoretically, we could seek to do without South African help and without using

the facilities of South Africa, but the task would be very difficult indeed. The strategic position is very simple: if South Africa does not provide modern ships and equipment, we should have to provide more.
One strand of the argument which has been used in the debate—this was reiterated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—is that any weapons can be used for suppressing internal disturbance. I must accept that, theoretically, there is an element of truth in this. Even missile-firing submarines can be used for such purposes. There is a kind of grey area where weapons could be used for a variety of circumstances and purposes.
Were we to decide to sell arms, strict controls would have to be imposed by our licensing arrangements, but in practice it is in the highest degree improbable that the kind of equipment which we might be asked to supply to honour the Simonstown Agreement would be used for purposes for which it is not designed, if only for the reason that the South Africans already have very full supplies of equipment which is infinitely more suitable. They possess a large number of Canadian-built fighter-fighter-bombers. They possess French Mirages as well as the Italian-designed Macchi Impala.
It is possible that we might be asked to supply anti-submarine helicopters. Like all other items of equipment, this would have to be looked at on its merits. If, however, South Africa wishes to use helicopters, she need look no further than the 60 Alouette helicopters recently bought from France.
The strategic arguments for ensuring that South Africa can fulfil her share of responsibility for maritime defence seems very strong to me. We have listened to many arguments about morality and I agree that principle and policy should go hand-in-hand, but I fail to see the principle which says that we should trade with them, invest in their country, make money out of their trade, rely on their products, undertake joint naval exercises with them and give them a greater share in the command structure of the Southern Atlantic but refuse to sell them maritime equipment.
The last Administration tried to stimulate British investment in South Africa.


It now amounts to £1,000 million, greater than the combined investment of all the other countries of the world put together. South Africa is our fourth biggest customer. We buy one-third of her exports. She was given preferential access to Britain's markets and the Labour Government firmly resisted any pressure to end that preferential access to our markets. Also, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, when the Labour Party were in office, they authorised contracts which would enable our Atomic Energy Authority to buy South-West African uranium ore to the value of £40 million.
I can understand the morality of an argument which says that all this contributes to the overall strength of South Africa and, therefore, one should have nothing to do with it. I can understand the genuine worries, although I believe them to be groundless, which exist in this country and in Africa north of the Zambesi. What I cannot understand is the morality which says that we should trade and invest, we should use their naval facilities, we should rely on them to defend the area but we should try to deprive them of the equipment for marti-time defence.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, for fully understandable reasons, to wind up the debate. There is a certain irony in this because, judging by all the newspaper reports towards the end of 1967, it was the right hon. Gentleman and quite a number of his right hon. Friends who are now occupying the Opposition Front Bench, including a number of his former senior Cabinet colleagues, who were prepared to conclude a major arms deal with South Africa. Here are the headlines in the papers—
Brown and Healey split Cabinet".
That was the Daily Mail.
Arms ban row splits Cabinet".
That was the Daily Telegraph.
Cabinet splits over arms to South Africa".
That was The Guardian. And the interesting thing is that the name which features in all the articles and all the national headlines about the arguments and voting for an arms deal with South Africa is the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East. No wonder the Leader of the Opposition is not here.

Can they really look squarely into each other's eyes?
I have tried to deploy to the best of my ability our defence interests in this part of the world. They are very considerable. We have, however, been careful to point out that we have taken no decision yet about supplying arms to South Africa. What I have made clear is that we do not intend to pursue the equivocal attitude of the previous Administration, who were at pains to show all the outward signs of non-co-operation with the South African Government but quietly continued to engage in naval exercises with them and quietly continued to supply them with certain types of military equipment, including spares for aircraft.
As my right hon. Friends have said, we are now engaged in consultation with Commonwealth Governments. Some of them have not yet replied. Others have asked for further information. To act before the process of consultation is complete would be to contradict the purpose of the process. Also, the South African Government themselves wish to see clarification of the way in which the Simonstown Agreement is interpreted. Decisions have not been reached. Consultations have not been concluded.
I have the impression that the Opposition are anxious to vote. Just as they went in for instant government, so they are going in for instant opposition, but just before they vote I will say this to them. Their purpose has got nothing to do with the sale to South Africa of arms which could be used for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid or internal repression. It is clear beyond a scintilla of doubt from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that their vote tonight has got nothing to do with the racial policies of the South African Government. Her Majesty's Government have made their disagreement with these racial policies abundantly clear. Their vote tonight, in so far as one can rationalise it, is simply a vote on whether or not, after full consideration, the Government should or should not be allowed to decide where Britain's defence interests lies. We will give mature consideration to the views of all Commonwealth Governments and of the United Nations, but the ultimate


decision on Britain's defence policy rests with the British Government.

Question put,

That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to abandon its present intention

to authorise the sale of arms to South Africa contrary to the United Nations resolution, since this would threaten the survival of the Commonwealth as a multi-racial community and inflict grave damage on the political, economic and strategic interests of this country.

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 313.

Division No. 9.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leonard, Dick


Allen, Scholefield
Eilis, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Fred
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus


Atkinson, Norman
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, L'wood)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles


Barnes, Michael
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnett, Joel
Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Beaney, Alan
Foley, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foot, Michael
MacColl, James


Bennett, James (Glasgow Bridgeton)
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Mackie, John


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
MacLennan, Robert



Ginsberg, David
McManus, Frank


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E).


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marquand, David


Buchan, Norman
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Buchanan, Richard (Gl'gow, Sp'burn)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian (Dunbartonshire, West)
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cant, R. B.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)



Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Cocks, Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Cohen, Stanley
Hilton, W. S.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Rt. Hn Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Roland


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Hn. Ronald King


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill>
O'Halloran, Michael


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Dalyell, Tam
Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, Maurice


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Padley, Walter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham. S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)
Johnson, James (K'ston-upon-Hull, W.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Eadie, Alex
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)




Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Richard, Ivor
Steel, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wallace, George


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Watkins, David


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strang, Gavin
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roper, John
Strauss, Rt, Hn. G. R.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Taverne, Dick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, West)


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle on Tyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Silverman, Julius
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Skeffington, Arthur
Torney, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael



Small, William
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Spriggs, Leslie






NOES


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crouch, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Curran, Charles
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Astor, John
Dance, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Davies, John (Knutsford)
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Havers, Michael


Baker, W. H. K.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hawkins, Paul


Balniel, Lord
Dean, Paul
Hay, John


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hayhoe, Barney


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton,
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Heseltine, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hicks, Robert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Body, Richard
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Boscawen, R. T.
Eyre, Reginald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bossom, Sir Clive
Farr, John
Howe, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bowden, Andrew
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Braine, Bernard
Fidler, Michael
Hunt, John


Bray, Ronald
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brewis, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet
James, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fortescue, Tim
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Foster, Sir John
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bryan, Paul
Fowler, Norman
Jessel, Toby


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fox, J. Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Buck, Anthony
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Burden, F. A.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kershaw, Anthony


Channon, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kilfedder, James


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, Joseph


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Green, Alan
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Grieve, Percy
Lambton, Antony


Cooke, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Coombs, Derek
Grylls, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cooper, A. E.
Gummer, Selwyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold
Le Marchant, Spencer


Corfield, F. V.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cormack, P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)


Costain, A. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)







Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Longden, Gilbert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Loveridge, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stokes, John


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peel, John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


MacArthur, Ian
Percival, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Tapsell, Peter


McLaren, Martin
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pink, R. Bonner
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow Cathcart)


McMaster, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tebbit, Norman


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Temple, John M.


Madel, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Tilney, John


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Redmond, Robert
Trew, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Moate, Roger
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Molyneaux, James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


Money, Ernle
Rost, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Royle, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Weatherill, Bernard


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wilkinson, John


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Woodnutt, Mark


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold
Younger, Hn. George


Nott, John
Speed, Keith



Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sproat, Iain
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Jasper More.


Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LEVY)

10.16 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if with those Regulations we discuss the other Regulations:
That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Mr. Corfield: The Films Act, 1970, which received the Royal Assent at the conclusion of the last Parliament, extended the period of time during which a levy is to be imposed on exhibitors of cinematograph films to the public, the proceeds of which are distributed mainly to makers of British films. Section 4 of that Act provided that the levy shall be imposed for a further ten periods of 52 weeks. It is necessary to refer in this context to "periods of fifty-two weeks", rather than a year because the levy is calculated on the basis of periods which consist of complete weeks ending on Saturdays, to fit in with the normal cinema booking practice. The operation of the relevant provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1957 was extended by the Films Act 1966 until 3rd October 1970; the 1970 Act continues in force for a further 10 years until September, 1980. The statute charges the Board of Trade with the duty of making Regulations governing collection and distribution of the levy and such Regulations must be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, and require the approval of both houses. Until the Regulations are operative the levy cannot be collected or distributed; the Regulations at present in force will expire on 3rd October; and the draft Regulations now before us take their place. The House will appreciate that that is why it is rather urgent that they should obtain approval before the House rises. For the most part, these Regulations are a repetition of those at present in operation. There are some

purely formal and drafting changes, and I shall draw the attention of the House to the only two amendments of substance.
I will, if I may, deal first with the Collection of Levy Regulations. All that these do is to extend for the ten consecutive periods of 52 weeks the operation of the corresponding Regulations of 1968. No change is proposed either as regards the rate of levy or as regards the detailed arrangements. These matters were fully investigated when the 1968 Regulations were under consideration. We feel that the 1968 Regulations represented a fair settlement between the needs of exhibitors and producers and that there is no case at present for upsetting the balance then achieved.
I hope that the House will share this view and will accept the draft Collection of Levy (Amendment) Regulations which, as I have explained, are essential to ensure the continued operation of the levy scheme provided for by the Act.
I turn to the Distribution of Levy Regulations, and I am afraid that this is rather heavier reading. We are concerned here with the payments to makers of British films. These Regulations are much more lengthy than the Collection Regulations, and the draft before us is, I fear, a somewhat formidable-looking affair. But I can assure the House that, except for one or two changes necessary to bring the Regulations into line with the Act of 1970, and except as regards the two amendments which I have just mentioned, it does no more than repeat the existing Regulations. These latter Regulations are contained in Statutory Instrument 1963, No. 1376, and three succeeding amending Regulations, which are listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulations before us. The opportunity has been taken to consolidate the Regulations into one document.
The principal effect of this new document, like that of the Collection Regulations, is to extend for a further ten periods of 52 weeks the operation of the present Distribution of Levy Regulations. All sections of the industry are agreed that the levy arrangements, which amount to no more than a partial redistribution of the industry's own income, have assisted in the development of British film production, and I think that


the proposed continuance of the arrangements will meet with general approval. This is the substance of Regulation 4.
One important change is contained in sub-paragraph (h) of Regulation 3(1) in page 2. The effect of this variation in the definition of an eligible film will be that in future the studio, if any, used in making a British film must, if the film is to qualify for levy earnings, be in the United Kingdom. British films made in Commonwealth studios or in studios in the Republic of Ireland will continue to be eligible for registration as British quota films. This is an arrangement of many years' standing, and the Films Act made no change. There is no evidence that the arrangement gives rise to serious threat to the industry in the United Kingdom. Although most Commonwealth countries do not have screen quota arrangements, those that do accord us reciprocal treatment.
The levy, however, is different, being an arrangement for partial re-distribution of the box office takings in Great Britain alone. The purpose of the levy is to encourage film production in this country, and there is no comparable arrangement either in the Republic of Ireland or in any Commonwealth country.
There is provision in the film legislation whereby an applicant for the registration of a film is entitled, if he so desires, to require the Board of Trade, when it is determining whether a film is to be registered as a British film, to leave out of account a designated portion of a film, such portion not to exceed 7½ per cent. of the total playing time of the film. A similar concession will also apply under the new levy Regulations in respect of films which use Commonwealth or Irish Republic studios to a limited extent.
If, for example, a film is being made on location mainly in a Commonwealth country or in the Republic of Ireland, the maker will still be able to make limited use of a studio in that country without forfeiting his right to levy earnings. The deciding factor is that when the film is finished, the playing time of the material shot in a studio outside the United Kingdom must not, if the film is to be eligible for levy earnings, exceed

7½ per cent. of the total playing time of the film.
There will, I think, be general agreement that if the film consists of any appreciable degree of photographs of studio scenes, then, bearing in mind the purpose of the levy it is reasonable to require that the studio should be in the United Kingdom.
The second change made by these Regulations concerns low-cost films. That is, a film which at present earns two-and-a-half times the normal rate, and it will continue to do so. The reason for this enhanced rate of levy for low cost films is to encourage makers of films who do not have access to the large sums of money to continue to make films.
The production of less costly films offers scope for the development of young talent. In the existing Regulations, a "low-cost film" is defined as follows:
a long film the labour costs of which do not exceed £20,000 in the case of a film registered before 6 October, 1968, and £25,000 in any other case".
The purpose of the amendment is to lift that £20,000 to £50,000 as a result of experience of increasing costs and so on.
I should explain that under the existing Regulations the enhanced rate of levy earning applies only in respect of box-office earnings up to the total labour costs of £18,750—£15,000 in the case of a film registered before 6th October, 1968. Earnings above those amounts count for levy purposes only at the standard rate. The draft Regulation now before us makes no change in this respect. The 1957 Act requires the Board of Trade to consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations which concern collection or distribution of levy. The regulations now before us are in accord with the Council's recommendations.
I ask the House to approve both the Collection of Levy and the Distribution of Levy Regulations.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Those of us who travelled through the Committee stage of the rather complex Measure, the Films Bill which became the Films Act, towards the end of the last Session,


will recognise that the measures now before the House stem in very large part from decisions which were come to in that Act. The Minister of State was entirely correct in saying that these measures are unlikely to cause any considerable controversy. I think I am right in saying that the two instruments before the House come to us with the unanimous approval of the Cinematograph Films Council. That is an added recommendation which will commend them, I hope, to hon. Members who might have found it a little difficult to follow the rather complex technicalities which always seem to accompany legislation to do with films.
I welcome the Instrument which simply extends the levy Regulations for a period of 10 years. They are simply a straight-forward extension of existing legislation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the other Regulations vary the situation in two important respects. They redefine what constitutes a low-cost film. The object of that exercise is mainly to take account of changes in the value of money and they vary the Regulations with advantage in that respect.
The other proposal contained in the Regulations has a considerable effect. A practical consequence will be that films made outside the United Kingdom will no longer qualify, except as provided in the Regulations, for the benefits of the United Kingdom levy provisions. The practical effect is most likely to be seen in the Republic of Ireland where films made at the Ardmore Studios which hitherto have qualified and benefited by the Regulations, will no longer qualify. The effect is likely to be that more films will be made in United Kingdom studios than has been the case. Films will still be made in the Republic of Ireland, but they will not qualify for United Kingdom levy provisions. This will have an incidental beneficial effect on the British film industry. I should like to say a word or two about that.
There is a popular idea that the British film industry is once again in a state of crisis. Personally, I do not share that view. If one looks back over the last 10 years one finds that the number of major feature films made in this country has settled down to about 70, and I hope that something of that order is likely to be made in the years immediately ahead. I do not think, therefore, that a critical

situation exists, and in so far as these Regulations will perhaps cause to be made in this country a few films which otherwise would not be made here, they will help to maintain the level of film production. I therefore welcome them.
However, if we are to maintain the level, we need studios in which to make those films, and what is particularly disquieting is the tendency, which is not directly related to the question of film production, to reduce the amount of studio facility in this country. This afternoon there was reference to the decision to close Boreham Wood studios. One has also heard rumours that Shepperton and Twickenham studios are under threat. How far these rumours are baseless, in an industry which is particularly prone to rumour of a rather gloomy sort, I do not know, but there is possibly no smoke without fire. I think there is rather a tendency to feel that studio space is nothing that we need worry about. This feeling is strongly to be resisted, and so far as these Regulations enable us to encourage British film production, we also have to take the other side of the coin and not allow British film studio space to disappear, because once a film studio is lost, it has gone for all time. If Boreham Wood and Shepperton were to go, the British film industry would be in a very bad way indeed.
I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see a slightly apprehensive look upon your face, and I should reassure you that I have no intention of straying too far beyond the bounds of order. I appreciate that I must not develop an argument about the whole future of the British film industry, and I shall refrain from doing so.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: Refer to it in passing, at length!

Mr. Jenkins: I should like to make two points which are directly relevant to these Regulations. If we are to take full advantage of the fresh opportunity for British production which arises from the Regulations, we must have places in which the films can be made. The suggestion was made this afternoon that the National Film Finance Corporation has no power to acquire film studio space. I questioned that suggestion at the time, and I question it now. I am told that the National Film Finance Corporation


already owns a small percentage of Shepperton studios. If it owns a small percentage of Shepperton studios, there is no reason why it should not own a larger percentage, and a percentage of Boreham Wood studios as well; or create a corporation, as has been suggested, in order to do that.
On another occasion, possibly on the Adjournment if I am successful, I should like to develop this point more fully. I believe that it is necessary and desirable to do everything we can to retain British film studio space so that we can take full advantage of the opportunities—they may be marginal but they are important—which are given to the industry by these Regulations which I warmly welcome.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I am very tempted to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in what I thought at once stage would be a far-reaching discussion of the woes of the British film industry. I will, however, simply say that I agree with him whole-heartedly that the British industry is not facing a crisis. It is in a difficult situation but it has not reached crisis level yet. Everybody in the industry has a different solution for and diagnosis of the problems facing the industry. Tonight we are limited to discussing these Regulations.
I want to raise three points. The first concerns what is an eligible film under the Regulations. I speak particularly of television films. According to page 2 of the Regulations, certain classes of film are not eligible. One of those classes is a television film, as defined at the top of page 3. I refer also to Regulation 7(3)(i) on page 5. Does my hon. Friend agree that my reading of the effect of those three provisions is correct, that a film which is made for the commercial cinema and which benefits by the payment of a subsidy through the Fund supported at the box office can be shown on television after 12 months have elapsed?
If this is so—I believe it to be so—it is not entirely welcomed by the British exhibition interests. They are organised in two main bodies. The principal and

best known is the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association. On several occasions in the last few years this body, with some of its important members dissenting and disagreeing, have said that films made with the aid of a subsidy paid by the cinema-going public through the levy at the box office should not be made available subsequently to be shown in competition indirectly with the cinema. The Association's Annual Report for 1967 states:
It seems illogical, inequitable and unreasonable that one section of the industry
—that is, the exhibition side—
should subsidise another section of the industry
—that is, the production side—
and that the subsidised section should then use the product produced with the subsidy to damage the section of the industry providing the subsidy.
That puts the situation clearly and succinctly.
I realise that we cannot amend Regulations. My hon. Friend comes new to this complicated and sometimes infuriating industry. He has my sympathy. I assure him that this is a point that is very seriously considered by the British exhibiting interests. I hope that he and his advisers will consider extending the period of one year referred to in Regulation 3(1)(b) on page 3.
Second, Section 6(1) of the recent Films Act enables money to be paid out of the production fund fed by the levy towards the film production activities of the British Film Institute and also in a subsidy to a national film school. The enabling power is given by Section 6 of that Act. The Regulations do not deal with that. If the Government wish to exercise the power, they will, I suppose, have to lay other regulations or in some other way bring the Section into effect.
I remind my hon. Friend that those of us who were then in opposition vigorously opposed the proposal that the levy on receipts at the box-office which feed the Fund should be siphoned off to the production activities of the British Film Institute and be used to provide a subsidy for a British Film School. It was our view, supported almost unanimously, I think, by the rest of the film industry, that this levy money has always been regarded as "industry


money". Although there was a concession made some years in respect of payments to the Children's Film Foundation, we felt, as did the interests outside, that the last Government in that piece of legislation, brought in without general agreement, had gone far beyond what had always been regarded as fair.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I believe that Section 6 is complete in itself and requires no further regulation to come before the House. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can effectively question a decision made by Parliament and in existence now when discussing Regulations which flow from another Section of the Act altogether.

Mr. Hay: I have pointed out that the Section gives enabling powers. I have said that one would not expect these Regulations to activate those powers. But I am reminding my hon. Friend of these matters and I ask him to consider, if this proposal comes before him and his Department, that it was something not agreed by the industry as a whole, and which the Opposition at that time vigorously fought and pressed to several Divisions in Committee. I hope that he and his Department will not exercise those powers in the future notwithstanding that they are in the Act—and certainly not without the fullest and widest consultation.
Now, a point about the collection Regulations. They are simple in themselves, but I make again a plea that the form which the ordinary cinema manager has to complete be simplified. I have not a copy with me tonight, but it is no mere form; it is a book. One has to fill it in day by day and week by week, showing all manner of matters relating to the films being played in one's cinema, the hours of performance, the time when the performance begins and stops, when an individual feature film begins and stops—all manner of things—and, what is more, the document has to be sworn. Even a minor inaccuracy may lay the cinema manager open to prosecution.
Will my hon. Friend and his Department look again at the form with a view to removing some of the onerous burden falling upon the ordinary cinema manager? I realise that a great deal of information has to be obtained if some of

the highly complicated drafting of these Regulations is to be adequately complied with, but I hope nevertheless that my hon. Friend has entered upon his new appointment with a desire to cut out red tape and get rid of restrictions wherever possible, and I urge him to look at this book with that object in mind. If he wishes, I will try to obtain a copy and send it to him so that he can see for himself just how tough the job of the ordinary cinema manager is.
Those are my only observations on these Regulations, which, as the hon. Member for Putney and my hon. Friend have said, are uncontroversial.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I intervene very briefly merely to indicate the Opposition's full approval of the Regulations. But for a psephological aberration I might very well be presenting them myself in very much the same terms.
They flow from a Statute which demonstrated, when discussed in the House as a Bill, the confidence which the Government and the Opposition of the day felt, and feel, in the industry. I join hon. Members on both sides who have decried a recent tendency to cry "Wolf!" about the prospects of the British film industry. I regard the Regulations as a further proof that we in the House look forward to a successful and expanding future for the industry, given certain conditions—that the industry itself should become ever more flexible in the face of differing tastes and markets, and in developing techniques and technologies, and above all should become more and more cost-conscious.
The Regulations, with the National Film Finance Corporation, which lends money to the industry, and the quota system, provide a tripartite support for the industry on which both sides of the House are fully agreed. The levies provide fairly substantial financial aid for the industry, but the bulk of the capital must continue to be sought from other sources, and it still is a very big capital demand. There is some indication that the flow of American capital into the British industry may momentarily be less than it was. I hope that no one will go from this short debate with any impression that this will be a continuing phenomenon. Informed opinion in the


industry is convinced that American participation in the British industry will ultimately recover its appropriate place, and that we can look forward to assistance from that source. But more gratifying than that is that British capital is increasingly showing interest in the potentials of the industry. The interest shown recently by E.M.I., for example, is something that we all welcome. Then there is the possibility of Continental financial interest in the facilities and the talent which Britain can provide.
All these are facts pointing to a confident future for the industry, and the Regulations bear out this belief, which is common to us all. They do not, as the Minister indicated, depart substantially from the 1963 Regulations, but it is worth noting that the two main amendments, relating to distribution, fortify our confidence in the industry. The amendment which extends the period during which the proceeds of the levy will be distributed to the makers of eligible films for a further 10 years takes us to September, 1980, and is in itself an indication of confidence.
Then there is the amendment which confidently defines an eligible film as one which is British if the playing time of scenes photographed or sound recordings made in the United Kingdom is not less than 92·5 per cent. of the whole. I am turning the hon. Gentleman's figures the other way round to show that this is an indication that we are supporting in the Regulations, and by these levels, a very substantial British participation in the making of films.
I join the hon. Gentleman in the intention not to extend the benefits of the levy beyond the United Kingdom. I do not want to stress this point, but there are anomalies which even this country cannot bear indefinitely.
I have only one question. Can the Minister tell us whether the N.F.F.C. is now fully constituted? If not, will the Minister indicate his plans about this important matter?

Mr. Corfield: By leave of the House; I appreciate the welcome which hon. Members have given to the regulations. I am glad that hon. Members have decried the message of crisis which we have had from some quarters.
It is difficult to find any reference in the regulations to studios, but I understand that the legal advice which I gave to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) this afternoon was completely sound. I doubt whether the film industry is facing a shortage of studios rather than a shortage of money. The tendency has been more and more for films to be made on location, thereby cutting the proportionate use of studios. This is a trend which is not necessarily doing any harm to the industry. As the hon. Member himself pointed out, the number of British films has kept fairly level, and that level looks like being maintained over this year, which is an encouraging sign.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The reason that I propose to pursue this matter on a more appropriate occasion and to engage the Minister's attention is that I believe that if we once lose the film studio space which we now enjoy, the whole future of the British film industry will be prejudiced.

Mr. Corfield: I am always willing to listen to the hon. Member's arguments. My present impression is that he is unduly pessimistic.
I cannot remember off hand whether the gentlemen concerned have actually been notified of the intention to appoint them to the N.F.F.C. and whether they have accepted the assignment, but certainly they have been selected. It is constituted and if the continuity is not yet assured, it will be shortly.
I should like to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) said about the TV film. The general spirit of the scheme is to encourage people to produce successful commercial films. If having achieved sufficient commercial success they are attracted to the television circuit, I should hesitate before introducing a penalty for that element of success, and this was the effect of what my hon. Friend suggested. I appreciate the argument of the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association that there is a degree of anomaly in that one section of the viewing public in effect is subsidising the other, but I should hesitate to introduce any form of penalty.

Mr. Hay: My hon. Friend is turning the argument on its head. The whole


point is that if there is a subsidy for film production, it should be for films to be shown in cinemas and not for films to be shown on television. There are perfectly adequate methods whereby films may be made and are made on all kinds of media for television directly, but it is only in respect of the commercial cinema that the subsidy is created and is siphoned off in the way we have described.

Mr. Corfield: I appreciate that, but as I understand it—and I do not profess to be an expert—most television films made specifically for television are made on tape, and I should have thought that they fell into a rather different category from that of a film which started to be made as a cinema film and subsequently obtained a contract for use on televsion. I will look into that, but, on the face of it, I think that there is as much in my argument as there is in that of my hon. Friend.
The question of Section 6 of the Act about the use of the levy for the production activities of the Film Institute or the Film School does not come within these Regulations. The Board of Trade has power to approve a request by the Agency to use money for these purposes. I can assure my hon. Friend that if there is such a request and our approval is required the request will be looked at very carefully. Any films produced by either of these organisations which obtained commercial showing would be British quota films and would be entitled to levy; so that there is probably a case for ensuring that they are not paid for twice. However, I will bear the point in mind.
I am given to understand that no information is asked for on the forms which is not essential to the working of the scheme. But I will look at the forms to see whether they can be simplified. However, it is essential that the forms on which people draw money—and if they overdraw it is at the expense of other people who are entitled to the money—must be accurate, and there is a case for some degree of sanction which is obtained by people swearing to the accuracy of the forms and the clear understanding that a false statement may lead to prosecution.
I am grateful to the House for dealing with the Regulations with the minimum of controversy.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Corfield]

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER, 1970

10.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That the Maximum Number of Judges Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
We are asking the House to give approval for power to be given to increase the maximum number of judges within which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor can make appointments when and if necessary.
Under the terms of this Order there are three different categories of judge. There are the Lord Justices of the Court of Appeal, the maximum number of which the Order seeks to increase from 13 to 14. Secondly, there are the puisne judges of the High Court, and the Order seeks to increase their number from 70 to 75. Thirdly, the Order seeks to increase the number of county court judges from 105 to 125. The purpose is to ensure that the Lord Chancellor can provide a sufficient number of judges to deal with what I fear is an ever increasing scale of business, both civil and criminal.
Different considerations affect the different categories of judges referred to in the Order, but I emphasise that the numbers set out are maxima. The machinery for this Order comes from the Administration of Justice Act, 1968, which was introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), which set up maxima. The Act enables the maximum


number of judges to be increased by Order in Council to be laid before and approved by the House—a procedure which the House may think was a very sensible innovation of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South in that Act.
It is proposed to increase the maximum number of judges in the Court of Appeal to 14. Since 1964, appeals set down have increased from 618 in that year to 948 in 1969, an increase of over 50 per cent. In the first half of 1970 the number was 473 compared with 467 in the first half of 1969.
To deal with the business of this court, in which in 1969 there were delays of eight months, which have now been reduced to five months, it is necessary to sit in four divisions for the hearing of civil appeals—that is, four divisions of three, or 12 lords justices. The view is taken that three to four months is probably the appropriate time from the setting down to the hearing of an appeal.
For the future business of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice needs two, and frequently three, lords justices for sitting in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. Therefore, with an establishment of only 13 lords justices and the Master of the Rolls, the Master of the Rolls has been obliged to use a law lord when he has been able to obtain his services or a retired lord justice. This will not, and cannot, continue. We are, therefore, satisfied that the establishment of 14 is clearly necessary. That will permit 11 lords justices and the Master of the Rolls to sit in the four divisions and permit three to sit in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, as is frequently necessary.
The second category deals with the puisne judges. The existing establishment is 70, the present strength 66. That figure of 66 includes judges on special tasks and assignments, like Mr. Justice Scarman with the Law Commission and the inquiry in Northern Ireland and, for instance, Mr. Justice Roskill, who is engaged in the airport inquiry, which deprive the courts of their services.
As I have said, the trend of business is ever increasing and in 1969, 12·8 per cent. more time had to be spent by judges

and commissioners trying crime on circuit. The estimate is that the 66 will not suffice in 1971 and there may be need of an extra five, making a maximum of 71. If that trend continues into 1972, therefore, the suggestion is that the maximum should be raised from 71 to 75.
The House may like to know the estimate for the Queen's Bench Division on assize. Thirty-two judges will be needed for both civil and criminal business on assize. The inclusion of the one or two judges at the Old Bailey, the two judges in chambers, one judge sitting in the Commercial Court, three in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division, and with eight sitting in the civil courts in the Royal Courts of Justice, making a total of 17, gives a total of 49 judges of the Queen's Bench Division, 10 Chancery Division judges and 12 Probate, Divorce and Admiralty judges. That estimate alone totals 71. It is wise that we should have room to create more if the business in 1972 increases as it has in the past.
It is estimated that the extra-judicial activities in which judges are called upon to participate, such as sitting on commissions and committees, is probably equivalent to two full-time judges sitting throughout the year. The House should appreciate that apart from trying cases in the civil and criminal courts, the judges are called upon to perform such extra tasks from time to time. Last year, the use of commissioners was equivalent to one judge sitting continuously. Commissioners can be of the greatest assistance and help, particularly when a crisis arises, as when long cases have to be heard at different assize towns and there arises a sudden need. This rôle is also useful for the testing, as it were, of persons who might be suitable for judicial appointment. Obviously it is more desirable that a litigant should have his case tried by the appropriate judge, and I may say that my noble Friend is very conscious of the need to maintain the quality of the Bench, but it is, I would suggest, this need to have elbow room to meet the ever-increasing trend of business that makes it necessary to increase the maximum, and it is better to do it now, in my submission, and, therefore, to provide, within reason, for speedy trial.
The third category is that of the county court judges. There the maximum now is 105, and there are actually 105 in post, but nevertheless, in 1969 there were 1,000 occasions when they were obliged to use deputies or retired judges. The county court judges' sittings have increased by 6·5 per cent. due to the increase in divorce and also in ordinary business, and it is estimated that at present the time of 12 county court judges is occupied as deputy chairmen of the Greater London Sessions and the Commissioners of the Crown Courts in Liverpool and Manchester, and it is estimated that in two years' time this will be increased to 14.
I appreciate that the abolition of the judgment summons procedure introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the facilities of the various Administration of Justice Acts introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman will provide some relief, but the Divorce Reform Act, 1969, and the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act, 1970, will put on judges additional work, and there has been an increase in their jurisdiction, and it may be that that jurisdiction will be further increased. Therefore, extra judges will be needed in 1971 and 1972, as I have said, to meet this graph which is ever increasing.
Judges will, of course, only be made as the need arises, and the legislation which has been forecast in the Queen's Speech for the future organisation of the courts of assize will call for full-time circuit judges to a number in excess of the maximum of the county court judges now proposed in this Order. If that legislation is accepted those judges will, of course, be included in the circuit judges.
So I would ask the House to accept that it is convenient to have sufficient judges by 1972 to meet the contemplated changes, and it is right that we should give power to have these men and women, if it is necessary, so that the business of the courts can be more speedily and better conducted.

11.8 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained with clarity to the House that the justification for the increase in the number of judges proposed in this Order is the increase in the volume of

work of the courts. Obviously, that has to be coped with, or the alternative is an increase in delays in bringing cases for trial and in the hearing of appeals.
It is clearly important, first of all dealing with the Court of Appeal, that its work should not fall behind, and I have little doubt that there is ample justification for increasing the maximum number of Lords Justices of Appeal by one. It is obviously undesirable that litigation should drag on and on and on, and even more undesirable that there should be long delays in the hearing of criminal appeals, because, in that sphere, justice delayed can indeed be justice denied, particularly when one bears in mind the considerable number of appellants, whose appeals subsequently succeed, who remain in custody during the period of waiting appeal, and it is an appalling thought that an innocent man should suffer that fate when there are no arrangements under our system of administration of justice for compensating him for that misfortune. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given the House vivid statistics which show the massive increase in appellate work.
As I understand it, one of the serious delaying factors in the Court of Appeal, particularly in the Criminal Division, is the difficulty of obtaining transcripts of shorthand notes. I do not know whether it would be convenient for the learned Attorney-General to inform the House tonight of the present state of play. It is a matter which gave us great concern when we had responsibility for the administration of justice, and I would welcome any information on that which he can give.
It may also be relevant to the matters we are considering and the factor of delay if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the House what effect the changes in arrangements for legal advice for prisoners have had on the number of criminal appeals. When the Lord Chief Justice announced these new arrangements he hoped that the effect would be to discourage hopeless appeals, and it would be convenient if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were able to give us the information and if we could be told what has flowed from those changes.
The proposed increase in the number of High Court judges from 70 to 75 is large, particularly when the House remembers that the number of High Court judges now in post is only 66. The noble Lord the Lord Chancellor in another place has said that it may be necessary to increase the number of High Court judges between now and the end of 1971 by as many as five judges. That seems to be a large increase in a comparatively short space of time.
I observed from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is contemplated that the use of commissioners will continue. There are peak periods for judicial work needing the services of judges, and at that time of the bunching of cases the use of commissioners is very valuable. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is necessary, at any rate in so short a space of time as the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, that there should be so many full-time judicial appointments to the High Court Bench.
Again, there is a large jump in the number of county court judges, from 105 to 125. Is it contemplated that there should also be a massive increase in the number of county court judges in an equivalently short time? Is this increase linked with the implementation of the Beeching recommendations? I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give the House an assurance that the active steps taken by the previous Administration to implement Beeching are being continued, particularly in view of the saving of time which we greatly hope that the Beeching proposals will achieve.
I do not want to introduce any controversial element, but I hope that the energy and pressure which the previous Administration manifested in dealing with the grave problem of delay in the hearing of cases will be continued. In view of the facts that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has disclosed, and which we were aware of just over a month ago, I welcome the Order.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am sorry that a matter of this importance has been raised so late at

night. We are all proud of our judicial system and, being so proud, the time is coming when the public will have to be asked to pay for it. It will not cost a great deal, but there are a large number of courts in the High Court of Justice, in the Strand, which are for ever empty because they are not manned by judges, owing to the fact that judges are not available; they are out on circuit, trying criminal cases.
I should like to give the House an example. During February of this year the Old Bailey, being over-filled, took one of its cases into the Strand. I happened to be engaged in that case. During one afternoon it so happened that the defendant had perforce to look through some papers. At about five minutes past three o'clock in the afternoon, in the middle of the busiest time of that term—mid-February—I took a stroll round the High Court. There was nothing else to do. I was astounded at the number of courts lying idle and empty.
Accordingly, being of an inquisitive frame of mind, I put down a Question to the right hon. and learned Member for—I believe—West Ham, South—

Sir Elwyn Jones: Yes, and I have been since 1945.

Mr. Crowder: I knew I was right. I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I asked him what the position was. The Question was:
How many courts are now available for use in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand; and how many of those courts were empty and unused during the month of February 1970?
It may be thought that the month of February is particularly important because it could be called a mid-term month. It does not touch into the Christmas Vacation or the Easter Vacation; it is right in the middle. That is the time when one would expect the power house of British justice to be running at absolute peak, having regard to what has been said about the disgraceful delay that exists in respect of litigants in our courts. I received the following Answer from the right hon. and learned Gentleman:
Forty-eight courts are available. Six of them are substandard, of which two should be used only in an emergency.


—we have not had an emergency since about 1810—
During the month of February, 1970 there were 71 occasions when, for various reasons
—good Parliamentary language, this—
(including other calls on judicial time or illness)
—why all the judges should be ill in February, I do not know—
the satisfactory courts were not used.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1970; Vol. 798, c. 523.]
That is 71 judge-working days lost in the High Court of Justice in the month of February when many of the courts were empty, idle and unused.
I do not know who is responsible for this, but perhaps I can provide a solution. The previous Government, to whom devaluation was always dear, appointed no fewer than 193 Queen's Counsel in the short time they were in office. It is interesting to note that the number of Queen's Counsel practising over the past five years has been 208, 209, 221, 236 and 262, respectively. One would have thought, with 71 courts lying idle and nobody doing a hand's turn in them, that of those hundreds of Queen's Counsel one or two could have been asked to take a fortnight off and to try criminal cases, where men had been awaiting trial for anything from six to eighteen months.
Over the past few years the administration of justice in that respect has been an absolute disgrace. Who is to blame it is difficult to say, but the Lord Chancellor's Department could have filled those empty courts. The Lord Chancellor could have appointed some Queen's counsel who were out of work—and there are occasionally out-of-work Queen's Counsel. I hope that I have not yet joined that category, but the day may come.
The most disgraceful case, from the point of view of delay in which I have ever been engaged, was a so-called "queer-bashing" case, which was tried at the Old Bailey in January this year. Those boys were only 16 or 17 and the offence with which they were charged had taken place in August or September last year. Many of them had no bad records, and they were sent back to their jobs, which they did perfectly well for six or seven months, after which they were sentenced to Borstal. That is an absolute

disgrace to our judicial system. The sooner this Government do something about it the better.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I support what the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) said. I was also engaged, as a solicitor, in the case which he mentioned. I remember the consternation of those engaged in defending these youths at the inordinate delays, which, as he said, were a disgrace.
But this is not an isolated occurrence. It is not in the least extraordinary to find people held in custody, in London at all events, for periods of up to four months. There are also cases—I have more than one at the moment—of people on bail and awaiting trial for more than a year. That situation should not be allowed, and that is why I welcome the Order. But I am not sure that it will have a real effect in the criminal courts, which is where we should look first. I hope that my pessimism is confounded, but I doubt it.
It is extraordinary that, at a time when the House is considering the appointment of more judges, when there is an obvious urgency in dealing with this situation of delays, the Attorney-General, and his predecessor, for whom I have a high regard, have never given a thought to enlarging the range of people from whom the judiciary may be appointed.
If more and more judges are appointed there will be a severe strain on the Bar. Has not the time come for appointments to be made, particularly to the county court bench, from the branch of the profession which I represent, the senior branch? I should have thought that the days of monopoly enjoyed by the Bar must come to an end if we are to get rid of these delays.
There are about 250 to 300 senior appointments, and there are 2,000 practising barristers and 22,000 practising solicitors. Is it seriously suggested that solicitors are unable to provide from their ranks a number of suitable judges, particularly for the county court? If it is, it is a serious rebuke to a number of solicitors who have been appointed to the stipendiary bench and have carried out those duties with great distinction and ability quite recently.
It is certainly not the experience of other countries that solicitors are unqualified to undertake these jobs. In the United States, for example, academic lawyers are appointed, and they serve with distinction. In Scotland, where there is a separate profession, solicitors are frequently appointed as sheriff substitutes. They have no limit on their jurisdiction in civil cases, and a very wide jurisdiction in criminal cases. In Australia, where there is a separate profession, solicitors are eligible for appointment to the bench, and have been appointed. Indeed, the Chief Justice of Queensland is a solicitor. Here the majority of county court cases are tried by registrars who are solicitors, and since 1957 it has been possible for solicitors to be a deputy judge of the Mayor's and City of London Court.
The time must have come when this antiquated monopoly of the Bar should be broken down. The Bar perpetuates a very serious and unnecessary restrictive practice, and it does so on the ground that solicitors do not have the wider experience that is required for appointment to these positions.

Mr. Ian Percival: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the risk of seeming to be one of the profession referred to which is operating a restrictive practice, may I ask whether the question where the persons appointed should come from is in order on this Order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The only things in order are what the Order says. I think that if the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) adheres to those things he will be in order.

Mr. Davis: I certainly hope that I shall not at this very early stage of my life in this Parliament break the Rules of Order too much. I hope that I shall not even bend them too much. All I am trying to argue is that solicitors, because they come from a wide spectrum of society, because they have a very wide understanding of the problems that are dealt with in these courts, deserve a parity of esteem with the other profession, which they do not enjoy now.
This argument has been carried on for some time. The Law Society—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the argument has been carried on almost long enough now, and the hon. Member ought to adhere to the strict terms of the Order. I have given the hon. Member some latitude. I hope that he will be satisfied.

Mr. Davis: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I conclude by saying that, while I welcome the Order, I hope that the Government will give some consideration to the points which I have made, because there is simply no evidence that standards would deteriorate if the members of my profession were appointed to some of these positions.

11.28 p.m.

Sir John Foster: I apologise for being a few minutes late. I thought that the House would be sufficiently interested in cinematographs for that business to last half-an-hour.
One would be tempted to vote against the Order on one ground, namely, that it is a great pity that there is the necessity for these judges, but the necessity is obvious. There are delays, and there are about 300 remitted civil cases at Birmingham. There is no doubt about the necessity for the Order, but from what does the necessity arise? In my submission it arises from the fact that we have a very cumbrous legal system which spins out both criminal and civil cases in an unnecessary way—unnecessary if one altered the procedure.
Under the present procedure all the lawyers work consciously, and as quickly as the system allows. When I was much younger I was secretary to a number of law reform committees. In those days there was a very much smaller number of judges, there were the same complaints about delays in the system, and the same argument was used—we ought to have more judges. Various Lord Chancellors appointed business of the courts committees, Government Commissions, and the like, to study these matters. After the war we had the Evershed Committee. They all came to the conclusion that nothing much could be done under the present system: one could not save much in costs or time.
Therefore, if one pursued the tactic of voting against the something which was necessary, defeated the Order, and so forced the Government to reform the law,


it would be a mischievous way of proceeding, and one can only enter a plea with the Government to look seriously at the way in which the procedure of the courts is fashioned.
One can compare the Anglo-Saxon method—and here I treat the English and the American systems as the same—and that operating in France. Running-down cases comprise 75 per cent. of court proceedings. In England we have a day on which there is the hearing, so assuming that it is a serious case in which the plaintiff has been seriously injured, we have the witnesses to the accident, an accountant to prove his earnings, technical witnesses to prove that a car going fast causes more serious injuries than one going slowly. If there is bad blood between the doctors, we cannot have agreed medical evidence. This is done all on one day. Everyone has to be in court—solicitor, junior counsel, Q.C.—everyone. In the last few years we have had fixed days, but in my young days we had not even that. It is enormously expensive to have all these people in attendance in court. They all charge by the hour—like taxi drivers, and every so often the "clock" registers another advance.
In France, a case is broken up by the judge, who studies the dossier. When he wants legal argument, he calls in the lawyers to deal with a point of law. It is all much less expensive. English cases are slow and expensive, and in France our system is looked on as being contrary to natural justice. The French courts do not admit that our procedure is in accordance with human rights, because the length of the procedure produces expense, and the expense puts procedure out of reach of poor persons and within reach of those who can afford it.
As I say, it is a great pity that we waste our advantage of having strong judges, who can sit alone, who are incorruptible, and who, taken by and large, are intelligent men. It was, I think, a defamation of judges when someone said: "He was courteous. He was slow. He was always wrong. He had all the qualities of a great judge." In many countries on the Continent the judges sit in droves of three, five or 15, because it is a separate profession. The waste caused by our procedure makes very little sense in the context of the modern world.
Consider a complicated fraud case in the criminal courts. The Bloom case was due to last for six months. In such cases the jury are not allowed pen or pencil. They cannot always hear what happens. They are not allowed to take notes, while the lawyers have prepared their case for weeks beforehand. Obviously, there should be a mixture of paper and oral work, and the length of cases could be cut down. If the length of cases were cut down we could save manpower. In America they make the mistake of having 225 probate judges in Kansas alone. We have the advantage of a small judiciary, relative to population, and judges with great qualities, and we waste those judges and their time largely by having cases which can be strung out.
I join in the plea made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), that consideration should be given to the appointment of solicitors. In some cases it might be said that their training in advocacy was not suitable for some of the appointments, but there must be many solicitors who are entirely suitable for the High Court and the county court benches. I would also like to see more masters appointed, sometimes solicitors and sometimes barristers.
The reform of our judicial procedure is long overdue. For these reasons, I hope that while the House will obviously approve this Order, hon. Members will at the same time bear in mind that our whole judicial procedure, quite apart from the substantive law, needs a drastic overhaul.

Mr. Crowder: A few moments ago my hon. and learned Friend said that juries are forbidden to take notes.

Sir J. Foster: They do not have the opportunity.

Mr. Crowder: They do have the opportunity. There is a long case about a motor car fraud being heard at the Old Bailey, and the new notebooks came in today. The result is that when the jury retire, all the notes will be different and the jury will be out considering their verdict much longer than they need be, but at least they do take notes.

Sir J. Foster: I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says, and I am glad that jurors are allowed to take notes.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am delighted to find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we desperately need to reform our procedure. The trouble is that we have all the parties, the witnesses, expert witnesses, leading counsel, junior counsel and solicitors turning up in court for cases which frequently are settled, adjourned or disposed of in some other way. The reason for this state of affairs, with the next cases queueing up behind, is that we have insufficient judges. The whole procedure in the court offices is governed by the overriding rule that in no circumstances must one of the judges be kept waiting for a moment. This is a desperately false economy.
We do not have enough judges, and there are eminent people in the legal profession who could equally well be judges and might just as well be paid out of public funds as judges, rather than as leaders waiting for their cases to be called and being paid out of the Legal Aid fund. I welcome the Order, although I do not think that it goes far enough. We need far more judges to enable us to institute the type of procedural reforms which the hon. and learned Member for Northwich proposed.
I also associate myself with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central about the appointment of solicitors particularly to the county court bench. Some solicitors may be sufficiently qualified and suitable to sit on the High Court bench; I do not think there are many of them, but certainly there are many solicitors who in some ways are better qualified than are some members of the Bar to sit on the county court bench. It is the very nature of a solicitor's practice and experience that he should sit listenting to inarticulate people explaining their problems, and that is exactly the sort of situation that a county court judge has to deal with.
As solicitors, our hackles may rise when we have to do this sort of thing day after day, particularly if we have a working-class practice, but it is the kind of experience which is essential in the county court. We have excellent county

court judges. We have some who tend to be extremely impatient with inarticulate people between whom they have to decide issues, and some of the experience that solicitors have is a better preparation than can be obtained at the Bar for this job of sitting on the county court bench.
Finally, though it comes badly from Members of the House, who are about to rise for a three-month Recess, I suggest that consideration be given to shortening the court vacations. The courts rise for nearly as long as the House does. From the point of view of litigants, the availability of judges, and the number of judges needed to cope with the volume of business, it is desirable to shorten the vacations. It would cause uproar in solicitors' offices and barristers' chambers, because we rely on the vacations to catch up with some of our business, but we need to learn to put our own house in order. If the vacations were shorter, a greater volume of business could be conducted and cases could be dealt with more speedily and more satisfactorily than happens at present when cases, even the most urgent of them, that arise today will almost certainly not be dealt with until October.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) raised a big and important issue, in which he was followed by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). I do not propose to follow them on that issue, first because having myself raised the question whether it was in order it might be unseemly if I were to develop it and, second, because it is a subject which is much too important to be debated as a side wind on an Order such as this.
It is a question on which all the lawyers in the House should get together in the coming months. It is a question which has been under discussion for a long time, and we should continue to discuss it. I should not like either the hon. Gentlemen or the House to think that because I have not followed them with a detailed rebuttal of what they said I agree with it. There are definitely two points of view and two sides to the argument, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to discuss it in full before long.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) raised other interesting questions. Again, I do not propose to follow him on those, but I should not like him or the House to think that it is because I agree with them that I do not refer to them. I agree with some of them but not with all of them. There is room for a speeding up of the procedure.
However, one thing is certain. There are now many more criminal and civil cases to be dealt with and many more cases which are contested which would not hitherto have been contested but which are now contested because the contestants have legal aid to enable them to fight the cases. Whatever else may help to speed up the disposal of those cases, one thing that will certainly contribute to it is an increase in the number of judges, if the time of the judges is used efficiently. In the last Parliament we introduced a little more flexibility into the assize system. I hope that full use will be made of the increased flexibility.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich referred to the arrears at Birmingham. In some towns there are clearly identifiable fields and areas in which there are long delays and where something needs to be done. They are by no means universal. In some areas the disposal of cases is going speedily and well.
At Lewes Assizes last week a 20-day case was put over to the next assize because it could not be taken at this assize. It will never be taken at "this" assize, unless a judge can be sent specially to try it. I hope that what my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has in mind in increasing the numbers of judges is that it will give the Lord Chief Justice a number of additional judges who can be sent to hold special assizes or who can be sent to places to assist in dealing with a long backlog of cases or to deal with cases of the type to which I have referred.
I hope that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will not be slow to use the powers which, I hope, we shall give him tonight. Obviously, if we have more judges, and they are used efficiently, this must contribute to a reduction of delays. It has been a matter of surprise to some of us in the House that the Lord Chancellor of the Labour

Administration did not appoint even the numbers which he could have appointed. It was surprising that there was talk of lack of judge time and we could not catch up with the delays because there were not enough judges while there was at the same time a slack not taken up. Four judges could have been appointed without this Order.
Since four judges could have been appointed without the Order, I inferred that the purpose of the Order was that the extra number who could be appointed would not be limited now or in the near future to that four but that the Lord Chancellor would have power to appoint more than those four, and appoint them, perhaps, in the fairly near future. I hope that he will not hesitate to use the power we shall give him tonight. Whatever else we may do in addition to what we are doing here, it is manifest that the Order itself ought to make a material contribution towards what we all want, that is, a reduction in the present delays.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: We have heard calls for solicitors to go to the bench. It is unfortunate that no women counsel have entered the debate to suggest that women might be preferred rather more often for the bench. We have only one female High Court judge, Mrs. Justice Lane, who is utterly delightful. She is not only delightful, she is fair minded, she is courteous, she is patient, and she is inevitably right.
I suggest that those who have charge of judical appointments might look among the female of the species in the law to see whether there are those who can be brought on fairly soon for promotion to the bench. Although many men make good judges, sometimes one feels that the rocks of prejudice are only marginally hidden by the urbanity with which they perform their office, and it seems to me that there may be a case for promoting more women, if they are to be found. I understand that there is at present not one female county court judge in England and Wales, which is rather sad.
I welcome the Order, but with this reservation. I came into the House in 1966, and I have since then heard this kind of debate every year or two because the matter is dealt with on a piecemeal basis. We keep coming back here to


agree to an extra two or three judges in addition to the current total. There never seems to be any real, deep planning of what the trend requires, of how many judges we really need. We are assured on each occasion that the new increase will do the job, but two years later we are in the middle of another debate and are told that the courts are short of judges. We are told of court delays. The same speeches are being made on the same facts now as were made in 1966, although the number of judges has materially increased. I wonder how much research there was into the whole question of our judicial requirement and the ability of the Bar and its available manpower to fulfill the present and future requirements of the Bench.
The pressure caused by the present situation upon some judges has the effect of making them treasure speed as the prime judicial virtue. There are judges who are an embarrassment to justice because they take the view that they are proving themselves more able at their jobs the faster they can get through their list. No one should feel that he has not had a fair trial because of the speed upon which some judges insist. The more judges there are, the less the pressure, and the less the pressure the less will speed be regarded as a prime judicial virtue.
I do not feel, however, much as I welcome the Order, that it provides in itself a method for curing our ills in this regard. For every new judge trying criminal cases we need additional juries. There may be free courts in London, but in the provinces more courts cannot be stuffed into the existing buildings, and the conditions of juries, for example, are often very poor. In fact, they are primitive.
We have a shortage of solicitors. They cannot cope when sessions all come together. I do not think that the problem would be enormously alleviated by the introduction of the Beeching Report, because they have not the manpower to deal with so many cases and so many courts running together.
We should like to see a thorough inquiry into the requirement for new court buildings and the number of

solicitors we are likely to require, of barristers and judges, so that we do not have the impression of dealing piecemeal with a serious problem, the administration of justice, every second year in the House. I predict to the new Members present that they will be here on at least two more occasions in the next four or five years for a similar debate when another order is produced increasing further the number of High Court judges, and my solicitor friends in the House will once again be able to make similar speeches to the deaf ears of all the barristers in charge of the law in the House on the need to introduce more solicitors into our judicial process.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Michael Havers: It is a pleasure to find the measure of agreement that exists in the House tonight. I was pleased to hear an hon. Member opposite speak of the obsession in the courts and among those who administer them about the waste of a judge's day. This obsession is far too over-emphasised. When there is unexpectedly a plea of guilty in a criminal case, or there is a settlement in a civil case, that is not a wasted day. The result of the obsession is that the courts are usually overloaded with cases. Counsel, solicitors, witnesses, including expert witnesses like doctors, have to hang around, quite often the whole day, and their case is not reached. I should be happy to see this obsession taken from those who are inclined to overload the lists.
The delay which exists, particularly in the criminal courts, is always a great worry. I cite two examples without identifying the cases. In a criminal appeal in which I was engaged a short time ago, there were nine months between the date of conviction and the date of the appeal. The appeal lasted two days and the Lord Chief Justice, having allowed the appeal, said that if all the information had been known, this man would never have been convicted. But he spent nine months in prison awaiting appeal, the reason for the delay apparently being difficulties in getting the transcript. I echo the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) who asked questions about delays in getting transcripts.
The other example concerns a case at the Old Bailey two years ago when a girl of absolutely good character, who had never been in any sort of trouble and who was refused bail every time she applied, was arrested in May. The trial started in November and she was acquitted on 23rd December, having spent all that time in custody, another example of delay.
The judges have a huge amount of extra judicial duties. Judges of assize, who sit long hours, may have to prepare a detailed summing up and review evidence and often work, particularly in the last few hot months, in very unpleasant conditions under great pressure. They often have to go back to their lodgings and deal with a huge number of applications for leave to appeal. It is only recently that applications for leave to appeal, because there are so many, have been sent out to judges of assize, and they have to spend a number of hours each week on this work. This is in addition to the long hours which they work at assizes. Those of us who practise at assizes—and I know that this is a view which is shared by solicitors with experience of assizes—have seen the strain which is imposed on Her Majesty's Judges of Assize by these extra duties.
In a sense, the position has become ridiculous. In some assizes on the southeastern circuit we shall have as many as four assizes operating at once. A short time ago we had six judges, including commissioners, sitting on the southeastern circuit at one time. A great duty was imposed upon them and upon those who have to sit as officers of the court. Accordingly, anything that will lessen the strain and which will mean that justice is more quickly and more efficiently done must be welcomed.
I listened with interest to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) who spoke of the French system. My only comment about that is that at least our system allows for justice to be seen to be done, and I suspect that the system of which he spoke does not.

Sir J. Foster: In English law, if there is a plea of guilty, it is accepted and troubles like the Christie case happen. In French law, the prosecution has to

prove the case even if the person pleads guilty.

Mr. Havers: I shall leave it there; it may be wiser to do so.
The subject of appeals is always a worry. I do not think that we now have the position which existed at the turn of the century, when appeals against the decisions of one judge were always allowed. I used to play bridge with an admiral who was the grandson of that judge and he told me that as a boy of eight or nine he was having tea with his grandmother when she said, "Jam for tea today, John, Grandfather has been upheld in the Court of Appeal". That had remained in the admiral's memory for many years.
I should like to comment about county Court judges sitting at quarter sessions as judges. This may be just a personal view, for I have not found anybody to support me, but I think that the county court judge is the man who gives people quick justice, who often deals with litigants appearing before him in person. He is meant to be the man in the local town to whom anybody can go when he is in trouble, in debt or needs help. It is, I think, wrong that a county court judge should carry out criminal jurisdiction as well.
If a litigant in person who is due to appear before a county court judge as plaintiff or defendant or as debtor reads in the newspaper that morning that that judge sentenced somebody to 10 years' imprisonment at the county quarter sessions the previous day, it will destroy the relationship which used to exist, because it was quite rare until comparatively recently for county court judges to have criminal jurisdiction. I would prefer that they stayed as county court judges, a job which they do extremely well, without any taint of perhaps becoming part of the establishment, part of the criminal jurisdiction.
I welcome the Order and hope that it will be fully implemented at the earliest possible moment.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I came to listen to the debate and at one stage I thought that it might be dangerous to take part in it. But the voice of the ordinary man has not been


heard in this debate. We have heard the barristers and the solicitors, but we have not heard those who normally have to pay their fees.
As a mere layman who until recently has been a justice of the peace and who, incidentally, has been in some demand in some quarters of the House to witness the declaration of election expenses of even learned members of the Bar, I have noticed when sitting in court that on many occasions solicitors presented their cases so much better than barristers. Solicitors should be eligible for and should be appointed to one or two of the posts which we are debating.
Clearly the extension of legal aid has put an additional burden on the courts. The constant increase in crime is imposing a similar burden. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) prophesied that within a couple of years we should be asked to approve a further Order and should again be listening to the solicitors stating their case for preferment to the bench and the barristers arguing against it. Perhaps the non-legal Members, who are in a majority, will decide to take a hand in this issue, because very many of us have a fairly strong feeling that the legal profession could well do with amalgamation into one section. I know that that will upset a lot of my hon. and learned Friends and hon. and learned Members opposite. The division into two separate sections is the one thing which unites them. On the narrower point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), there will be a fair amount of support on both sides of the House from people not engaged in the legal profession.

12.4 a.m.

The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised.
We have heard about jam for tea and an admiral who was an acquaintance of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Havers), and in view of what the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said, there must be certainly one judge who would be blushing if she knew the delight in which she was held by one member of the Bar.
I do not propose to deal with the wider issues or to argue with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) about the distinctions between the adversary and the inquisitorial method of trial. I have the belief—it may be old-fashioned—that if the ordinary man in the street were given the chance to choose where and how he would have his trial, he might well prefer the system of justice which is administered in this country, which has the merit, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, of being seen to be done and of giving to the person who is either accused or is a party the rights which, I believe he should openly have.
The various matters which have been raised in the debate certainly indicate that there will be delights ahead when we deal with the legislation, which has been foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech, following the Beeching Report concerning the administration of justice on circuit and assize. We shall clearly have many exchanges across the Floor of the House and elsewhere, across the normal party line and across the professional line, when we deal with those matters. I assure the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that the Government are pressing on with the putting of those proposals into law and the introduction of the legislation which has been promised and which, I hope, will be introduced later this Session.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) put his finger on the problem that there are many more cases and that what is needed are many more judges to deal with them. I certainly accept that. The need for the improvement of procedure should be constantly under review. Many hon. Members have referred to it. During the past few years, through the assistance of both sides of the House, steps have been taken to try to improve the methods of presentation of cases and of the procedure at trial. This is a matter which should be continually pressed ahead.
The present position, however, is that there is this increase of business. The way in which it must be dealt with in the immediate situation is to increase the number of judges. It is hoped and believed that the various improvements


which will result from the Beeching Report will bring in train with them a better and more efficient administration of justice which will cut out many of the problems and objections which can be pointed to in some aspects of the administration of justice.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon and the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the idea of the waste of judges' time is pernicious and is less fashionable than it used to be. As both hon. Members have pointed out, the importance of justice is to those to whom justice is being administered, and it is they who should be largest in everybody's consideration to ensure that their position is first considered.
With regard to the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), I appreciate the position which arises in the High Court in the Strand. There are, of course, difficulties, as my hon. and learned Friend appreciates, in transferring criminal cases to those courts. There are difficulties with regard to the provision for juries and for security, but it is right that my hon. and learned Friend should draw attention to the fact that, whenever possible, all court accommodation should be used and should be made available so that the business of the courts can proceed.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It is the case, is it not, that the courts in the Strand are increasingly used, when the opportunity exists, for the trial of criminal cases?

The Attorney-General: I confirm that. It happens wherever possible, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. The recent long fraud cases, for instance, have been conducted in the courts in the Strand. This practice can continue to apply.
However, as I pointed out when I was moving approval of the Order, in London, if we take away those judges who are sitting in the Central Criminal Court, who are sitting in the Court of Appeal, and in Chambers, only about eight judges are available to try the civil cases in the Strand. This is because so many are needed to go out on assize.
The point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about transcripts is a very considerable problem. There is no doubt about it. Shorthand writers do give

priority to transcripts required for criminal appeals, but this is something which does need a great deal of attention, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood that it will be considered and pressed, to see what additional improvements can be made so that appeals are not delayed in this way.
With regard to the use of Commissioners as I have said, the real use of Commissioners is to deal with the peak periods, or the bunching of cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, when there are suddenly series of very long cases in different parts of the country, which have to be dealt with, and somebody has to be sent down to try them. Commissioners will be used in that respect, and usefully used in that way, and they must continue to be so used.
I think practically every hon. Gentleman who has spoken in this debate has agreed—and even, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg), who referred to himself as an ordinary man, though, of course, he is a justice of the peace, appreciates—that what we must have is men able and trained in the matters of litigation and of trial, to be able to go out into the country to deal with civil and criminal lists, and this is why it is thought at this time that we should project forward, as far as it is safe so to do, into 1972, because it is by 1972 that, it is hoped, the full Beeching, as it were, may be in operation. We project forward with this Order to help the position till that date. It is for this reason that we seek the approval of the House for this Order to make these increases.
I can only add that all the other matters which have been raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will certainly be studied with considerable care and attention, not only because they showed the shape of things to come but of the importance and interesting points which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have raised. I ask the House to approve this Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

COURTAULDS WORKS, WOLVERHAMPTON (CLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

12.14 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment this very important matter of the closure of Courtaulds' factory in my constituency. I would say at the outset that I am not going to talk about the Department of Employment and Productivity's part in this at all. I am absolutely satisfied with what the Department is doing to help my constituents, and the constituents of other hon. Members involved, to find other employment. My remarks, therefore, will be directed to the Ministry of Technology. I am glad to see one of the Parliamentary Secretaries on the Government Front Bench; I hope he has a very full, adequate and comprehensive reply to the points I intend to raise with him.
The closure of the factory involves 1,357 employees, and it is the largest redundancy of this kind that my constituency has experienced for a very long time.
The first intimation I had was a confidential letter of 21st May from Courtaulds advising me that viscose operations were to be discontinued at Wolverhampton because prices of raw materials were rising, higher wages and salaries were causing difficulties and there was an inability to raise selling prices to compensate for the rising prices and costs. Spinning output was to be reduced from the holiday period in July and August. Two spinning units were to be phased out by October, and tyre yarn production would probably continue somewhat longer than textile yarn production.
I immediately wrote to Lord Kearton and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. Lord Kearton replied on 28th May reiterating the reasons for the closure which had been given in the first letter, and adding that the refusal of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to allow the request to raise prices in November, 1968, was really the death knell of the factory. I was also informed that operations at the Wolver

hampton site would continue, but that it was not possible then to say what products would take the place of viscose production. I received a letter from my right hon. Friend dated 5th June in which he said that he had been informed that Courtaulds did not intend to dispose of the factory but that no decision had been made about its future use. He understood that there would be few discharges before September.
I went to see representatives of the management at their London office on 3rd July. It was made clear to me that there were no plans for putting alternative work into the Wolverhampton factory and that, although there had been difficulty in this factory for a period stretching as far back as five years ago, no contingency plans had been made for the alternative use of the site or for safeguarding the jobs of the employees.
The only undertaking which the management was prepared to give was to make sure that watchmen would be posted on the site so that the factory did not become a target for vandals and hooligans. We have had experience of this in my constituency with the closure of the railway workshops some time ago. These are now derelict, no alternative use has been found, the site has not been sold, every pane of glass in these large works is now broken, and the whole place is an absolute disgrace.
The management gave an undertaking that watchmen would be placed on the site and that when new processes and products were being considered in future the Wolverhampton workers would be borne in mind and the Wolverhampton factory would be considered for development. No real promises were given; all this was nebulous and very much in the future.
During the period of the letters and the meeting discussions took place with the unions concerned, the main union being the Transport and General Workers Union, about the problems of redundancy pay, retention pay, pensions for long-standing workers, the order of run-down of the staff and all the human problems involved in the run-down of a long-established works like this where many employees have served the firm for most of their working lives.
The upshot of the discussions with the union was that the union's proposal to protect long-service employees was refused. Retention pay for employees who would have to be kept on to operate the run-down and effect the final closure of the works was refused. The firm refused to make changes which the union was trying to negotiate in the noncontributory pension rules to safeguard workers over the age of 50 who will find considerable difficulty in getting jobs, and no progress was made in negotiations to obtain more generous redundancy payment over and above the statutory minimum. It was, therefore, announced that the works would close at the end of July instead of in October, about three months earlier than was expected.
The firm pleads poverty in refusing the legitimate claims of its workpeople, but what are the facts? The trading profits show a steady rise each year since 1962, with the exception of 1967, when there was a slight fall. World sales rose from £394 million in 1968 to £576 million in 1969 and to £626 million this year. Each year ends on 31st March, and the figure declared this March—of £626 million—was a record one. Home sales rose from £254 million in 1968 to £383 million this year. Profits rose from £36 million in 1968 to £52 million this year. It is not exactly a poor company, nor an unprofitable one.
The company has wide-ranging overseas interests and has invested large amounts of capital abroad, providing jobs for many people in many countries. Thus, there are factories in Canada, America, Australia and South Africa. It was reported in Italy in 1969 that the firm's interests continued to flourish and grow. But I notice from the managing director's statement this year that in the United States the firm's production was affected by the recession, and its Italian interests have been badly affected by industrial unrest in Northern Italy. Australian interests have suffered from a long and expensive strike at a key factory, and in New South Wales there was a strike that also affected production.
On the other hand, shareholders were informed that the factory at Calais is being expanded. Courtelle and Celon are produced in France and knitting

interests are established at Lille and Colmar. Thus while there is contraction and redundancy at Wolverhampton, in some areas abroad there is expansion and growth. In some, production is affected by strikes. It seems extraordinary to my constituents that there should be continued development in countries abroad, and that some countries where there is a considerable amount of labour unrest are favoured, rather than British interests, and particularly Wolverhampton interests. My constituents are beginning to put two and two together and to understand that this is merely a foretaste of what may become the pattern if we enter the Common Market. If firms decide, for various reasons, that production is unattractive at home, nothing can stop the gradual erosion of job opportunities in Britain and the transfer of production and investment abroad.
This really underlines the basic ailment and failure of capitalism here. Private firms are starving British industry of adequate capital, creating grey areas in many parts of the country. Industrial slums are producing inefficient industries while at the same time there is investment on a vast scale in some industries abroad which bring profit to some but no profit to the people of this country, who are looking to these firms for their future employment and prosperity. Far less benefit is brought than if investment on a similar scale were made in modernising existing industries here and in setting up new industries where they are needed. This is a matter of great concern nationally, as well as to my constituents.
Lord Kearton has had some harsh things to say about what he calls "Government meddling" and "ignorant interference" by bodies like the Monopolies Commission and the P.I.B., but it seems clear that some Government action needs to be taken when a firm as profitable and with such varied interests as this one can decide to throw a work force of more than 1,300 people on the scrap heap.
The prospects are not good for the older men, because for those who become redundant at this age it is difficult to find jobs in any part of the country and this is no less true in the West Midlands, which everyone thinks of as a prosperous


and booming area. The closure will also affect the job opportunities of many young people. The youth employment officer in Wolverhampton was telling me yesterday that there is added, increasing and visible difficulty now in finding jobs for school leavers and that many of them are many months out of work after they leave school at the end of the summer term.
So at both ends of the employment scale the prospects are not good, and they will be made worse by this closure. This is why I take such a serious view of this and why I am asking the Government to take action on certain points.
First, I ask the Minister to undertake at once a thorough inquiry into the affairs of the company, particularly the reasons for the closure of the factory. I should like him also to investigate the cost to the national economy if tyre cord requirements which are now met in Wolverhampton have to be met by imports instead after the end of the month. This will obviously add to our balance of payments difficulties.
I would ask the Minister to intervene at once, in the interests of my constituents who are affected by this considerable redundancy, to urge that the factory be kept going and urgent plans be made for alternative uses of the plant and the site. Has the management asked to be able to increase the prices of its products to keep the factory going? What would be the Minister's reaction to such a request, and how does the general situation at the factory fit in with the Department's general attitude to industry? Is the company to be allowed to raise its prices—a policy which appears to be acceptable to the Government? What is their attitude to price rises and possible redundancy?
I should like him to urge on the management responsible and generous treatment of all employees whose jobs are likely to disappear, unless the Government can use their influence to prevent or postpone the closure, and particularly those with many years of service to the company. This is an example of capitalism at its most ruthless and its most uncaring for a large number of working people who throughout their working lives have added to the profitability of the company.
Had it not been for the introduction of the Redundancy Payments Act of the previous Labour Government the situation for all these employees would have been much worse. But there is no doubt that the firm is treating particularly the long-term employees ungenerously. I have given enough information about the financial stability and strength of the company to show that it could certainly treat them more generously. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reply to my five main points, that he will undertake that he will not treat this closure lightly, that the Government will use their influence with the firm particularly to ensure that alternative uses can be found for the factory as soon as possible, and that, in the meantime, those workers who become redundant will be treated generously by the firm.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to say a few words about this issue. Like the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), I have a number of constituents who are affected by this closure, and I am greatly concerned about them.
It is important to put the record straight. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the hon. Lady has given us the whole picture. For instance, only this morning I spoke to officials of the D.E.P. at Wolverhampton and was assured by the manager that the firm had leaned over backwards to be helpful. Officials from the D.E.P. are working full time at the factory helping to settle people. The manager also told me that the arrangements for extra payments to workers laid off were much more generous than those which are made by most firms. It is important that these facts should be put on the record.
I deplore the closure of the factory, but why is it being closed? Here again we have to look at the whole picture, and I do not think that the hon. Lady has given us all the facts. In this case there has been a great deal of inflexibility on the union side. It was a walk-out which helped to precipitate this crisis. The hon. Lady has been castigating capitalism, but it is important that every unit should pay its way, and this unit has


been losing money at a high rate. By May of this year it was suffering a loss of £70,000 a month.
The unions involved have not been as co-operative as they might have been.

Mrs. Renée Short: Has the hon. Gentleman been in touch with the unions concerned to discover their opinions on the matter? The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the unions being unco-operative. What does he know about the activities of unions?

Mr. Cormack: I have spoken to various people about the issues involved. There has been far too much inflexibility at the factory.
I share the hon. Lady's concern for the older employees who will find great difficulty in getting employment over the coming months. According to the D.E.P., it seems likely that the younger employees will not have much difficulty in being re-employed, but there is tremendous concern for the older employees, many of whom are highly skilled people, but their skills cannot readily be adapted elsewhere, and they could well find themselves in grave difficulties for a long time.
This case illustrates above all else the necessity for the closest possible co-operation between all the parties concerned, and it emphasises the absolute necessity, when any sort of difficulty faces a factory of this type, for all the people involved to sit down to talk about the matter to try to reach a solution which can safeguard everyone.

12.33 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) have raised the question of the closure of the Courtaulds factory at Wolverhampton. I think the House will agree that an event of this kind causes great upset and upheaval to those concerned, but the first point which I should make is that the Government have direct responsibility for very few of the matters upon which the hon. Lady touched. Indeed, my Department, as opposed to the D.E.P., does

not have powers to intervene in the matters that she discussed. Nor do I believe that it would be right for my Department to have those powers.
The hon. Lady asked the reasons for this closure, and I have tried to ascertain them as best I could. If I attempt to answer her questions I hope I shall not put forward any wrong propositions, because it is not I, or my Department, who analyse the reasons. One can only take the reasons put forward by those responsible for running the company.
At present the viscose filament made at the factory is in decline. The market is shrinking. It is a product which has been superseded by the new man-made fibres, and for some time demand has been shrinking, although, perhaps, not quite as quickly as some had forecast. Against that background, it is obviously necessary to shorten capacity as the market contracts. I understand that this is the oldest and least efficient, in the sense of industrial efficiency, of the four plants which Courtaulds possesses, and it was, therefore, naturally keen to close down a plant which was losing a considerable sum of money and no longer seemed to have any effective future.
The hon. Lady asked about prices, and I will say a word here, because although the price of this product was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, the market did not sustain the price increase which was eventually allowed. Although the company has put up its prices since then by a further 10 per cent., the market has not been able to take this and the company has not been able to increase sales. It appears that increases in the prices of viscose filament result in more of the custom being switched to manmade fibres, thereby not increasing the market or the profits of the factory. So we must conclude that it was a factory which was on the way out because of technological change, and as it was losing money it would, I believe, be in no sense in the national economic interest for the Government in any way to suggest that it should be kept going.
I believe that there is need to accept change of this sort, and it is part of the duty of hon. Members to try to persuade constituents that in a modern, dynamic, changing society there will always be difficulties of this sort when one process


or plant goes out of action and is replaced, elsewhere perhaps, by new plants and processes.
The hon. Lady felt that the profits of the company were considerable, if not excessive, but she did not give the latest profit figure for this year, which is down by 25 per cent. on the £52 million she quoted—and even that £52 million was only a return on capital employed of 11·4 per cent. That, in itself, makes one feel that the company has by no means been earning large profits in relation to its very great size. These profits are essential for companies if they are to re-equip, build modern plant, do research, and make the investment in the future which in the past has enabled Courtaulds and other companies to grow.
I should like to pay a tribute to Courtaulds in one respect, and that is that it has been a major supporter of past and present Governments' regional policies. A very large amount of its expansion has taken place in areas which are less fortunate than Wolverhampton in relation to work. Scotland, Cumberland, Northern Ireland and Wales have all got large Courtauld factories. It might be of interest to the hon. Lady to know that the Canadian viscose plant has also been closed down, and if it is not possible to make that plant pay in a country where it is right on top of the wood pulp which is the raw material of viscose, it is unlikely that it can be a profitable operation in a place like Wolverhampton, which is far from sources of raw material of that sort.
I must, therefore, conclude that it would be wrong to intervene in any way, and, indeed, we have no powers to do so, and it is quite right that the facts of industrial change should be accepted and not hindered.
Having said that, we can now all share concern for those who suffer from this closure. The hon. Lady rightly paid tribute to the way that the Department of Employment and Productivity has been handling this redundancy, and I should like to say a few words about the prospects and the conditions which have been offered to those who have been made redundant.
Of the 1,400 people employed, some have already left and some will be kept on after the closure, but there will be a considerable number of people made redundant by the end of this month, as the hon. Lady said. It is a pity that the run-down could not have been phased over the six-month period which Courtaulds originally suggested, but the company was, unfortunately, unable to negotiate an agreement with the trade unions which would have enabled the complicated juxtaposition of people to be worked out so that the various processes could be kept going through the week and through the night which would have enabled production to be phased out instead of closed down altogether.
That, of course, is not a matter for me to comment upon, but the fact that the trade unions and the company were not able to come to that agreement has been the cause of the complete shut-down, rather than anything which the company has done to make life more difficult for the workers. They have, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock said, been very reasonable in providing more than the statutory minimum which is laid down to redundant workers. There is a pension scheme which applies to all those over 55, and that is something which many companies do not have. So all those who are older in the work force will receive benefit from that.
The company has fulfilled its obligations under the Redundancy Payments Act and it feels that its contribution to the redundancy fund, which it has paid in the past, is a sufficient contribution to help those who are made redundant. On top of that, the company has offered ex gratia payments to certain persons who are, unfortunately, particularly affected.
I also confirm, as my hon. Friend said, that the company has been remarkably co-operative with the officers of the Department of Employment and Productivity in facilitating the provision of new jobs and the analysing of the unemployment situation while the factory is still running. Wolverhampton has a very low rate of unemployment. It is only 2·1 per cent.—well below the national average. In the past, several thousand workers have been made redundant due to previous closures of factories in the town. Despite


this, the level of unemployment has hardly risen at all. So we are confident that the great bulk of those concerned will be able to find jobs—some sooner, some later—and, indeed, in the whole area of the Black Country there will be plenty of opportunities for work for those who are made redundant.

The Question having been proposed at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to One o'clock.